Meta

Like a car with high fins and long protruding tail lights, the phrase “independence of mind” has gone out of style, especially at colleges and universities where it ought to be the most profound ideal. The thugs have taken over.

As recently as 2008, a professor of Jurisprudence at King’s College London, Timothy Macklem, described the phrase in this fashion:

“Independence of Mind [explores] the ways in which the fundamental freedoms help us to achieve something even more profound, by enabling us to arrive at beliefs, convictions and voices of our own, so that we truly come to think, believe, and speak for ourselves in the rich and various ways that the freedoms then protect. Privacy grants us the distance and refuge from others necessary to develop views of our own; freedom of speech calls on us to imagine ways of expressing ourselves that are both true to the views we have developed and innovative in their own right; freedom of conscience enables each of us to create a distinctive rational personality in which to embed the convictions that we wish to treat as non-negotiable…”

If the professor taught at one of many American “liberal colleges” today, a mere nine years after he wrote that description, he would be pilloried and subjected to prolonged attacks from students and even other faculty.

That’s the pace of change these days.

I started NoMoreFakeNews.com in 2001. Independence of mind was a given for me. As the years passed, I saw the need for promoting it and defending it. I still do. More than ever.

What drives the human spirit isn’t sameness from individual to individual. It’s difference. It’s uniqueness. The people who know that and embody it are the lights that burn and keep burning. They’re inextinguishable.

The betrayal of independence of mind is fantastical in the culture. It raises a stink to the heavens. It oozes fanaticism.

Many of the little academic intellects who support that betrayal and play its tunes are Marxists in disguise, who seek revenge on humanity for their own failures and shortcomings, by putting populations under the totalitarian gun of political correctness. This is “progressivism.”

Without knowing it, I grew up on the legacy of Emerson and Thoreau and Walt Whitman. These giants of literature and philosophy had breathed the air of independence and knew what it meant in their blood and brains and souls and minds. They heralded an age that came and then went, buried in a growing landfill of collectivism.

The myth that the onrushing political Left was composed of millions of awake and aware individuals was eventually exposed as a gigantic lie.

There is a choice: the glory of the individual or the glory of the mob?

Whoever takes his own independent ideas and prizes them has something the mob can never fathom.

What does censorship mean to a person who has nothing that could be censored? Why would he be concerned about shutting up other people, since he has nothing of his own to express that might be censored?

What does “having an idea” mean to a person who has never considered making a distinction between what he thinks and what others, to whom he attaches himself, think?

In the description of independence of mind I quoted above, what would the following phrase mean to a person who is always surrounded with allies who mimic each other’s thoughts: “Privacy grants us the distance and refuge from others necessary to develop views of our own.”

Privacy? What is that? What is it for? Who needs it? Why would anyone seek it?

Therefore, what harm could come from spying on others?

Who stands up for something on his own when he has nothing to stand up for on his own?

In the delirium of the collective, it is always overcast and dim, and the occasional joys come from acts of destruction against the vague “other.”

The first sacrifice by the true believer is the sacrifice of self. From that, everything else follows with dead certainty.

No matter what the state of the culture, independence of mind is a virtue of the highest order.

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Over the past 35 years, I’ve exposed as least as much fraudulent science as any reporter around. That’s just a fact.

I mention it, because one would expect I’ve learned a few lessons in the process.

And I have.

Government-backed science exists because it is a fine weapon to use, in order to force an agenda of control over the population.

We aren’t talking about knowledge here. Knowledge is irrelevant. What counts is: ‘How can we fabricate something that looks like the truth?’

I keep pointing this out: we’re dealing with reality builders. In this case, they make their roads and fences and buildings out of data, and they massage and invent the data out of thin air to suit their purposes. After all, they also invent money out of thin air.

Since 1987, one of my goals as a reporter has been to educate the public about false science.

Between then and now, I have found that, with remarkably few exceptions, mainstream reporters are studiously indifferent to false science.

They shy away from it. They pretend “it couldn’t be.” They refuse to consider facts. They and their editors parrot “the experts.”

Official science has a stranglehold on major media. It has the force of a State religion. When you stop and think about it, official science is, in a significant sense, a holy church. Therefore, it is no surprise that the church’s spokespeople would wield power over major information outlets.

These prelates invent, guard, and dispense “what is known.” That was precisely the role of the Roman Church in times past. And those professionals within the modern Church of Science are severely punished when they leave the fold and accuse their former masters of lies and crimes. They are blackballed, discredited, and stripped of their licenses. At the very least.

Totalitarian science lets you know you’re living in a totalitarian society.

The government, the press, the mega-corporations, the prestigious foundations, the academic institutions, the “humanitarian” organizations say:

“This is the disease. This is its name. This is what causes it. This is the drug that treats it. This is the vaccine that prevents it.”

“This is how accurate diagnosis is done. These are the tests. These are the possible results and what they mean.”

“Here are the genes. This is what they do. This is how they can be changed and substituted and manipulated. These are the outcomes.”

“These are the data and the statistics. They are correct. There can be no argument about them.”

“This is life. These are the components of life. All change and improvement result from our management of the components.”

“This is the path. It is governed by truth which our science reveals. Walk the path. We will inform you when you stray. We will report new improvements.”

“This is the end. You can go no farther. You must give up the ghost. We will remember you.”

We are now witnessing the acceleration of Official Science. Of course, that term is an internal contradiction. But the State shrugs and moves forward.

The notion that the State can put its seal on favored science, enforce it, and punish its competitors, is anathema to a free society.

For example: declaring that psychiatrists can appear in court as expert witnesses, when none of the 300 so-called mental disorders listed in the psychiatric literature are diagnosed by laboratory tests.

For example: stating that vaccination is mandatory, in order to protect the vaccinated (who are supposed to be immune) from the unvaccinated. An absurdity on its face.

For example: announcing that the science of climate change is “settled,” when there are, in fact, huge numbers of researchers who disagree. —And then, drafting legislation and issuing executive orders based on the decidedly unsettled science.

For example: officially approving the release and sale of medical drugs (“safe and effective”) which go on to kill, at a conservative estimate, 100,000 Americans every year. And then refusing to investigate or punish the agents of these drug approvals (the FDA).

For example: permitting the widespread use of genetically modified food crops, based on no studies of their impact on human health. And then, arbitrarily announcing that the herbicide, Roundup, for which many of these crops are specifically designed, is non-toxic.

For example: declaring and promoting the existence of various epidemics, when the viruses purportedly causing them are not proven to exist or not proven to cause human illness (SARS, West Nile, Swine Flu, etc.)

A few of you reading this have been with me since 1988, when I published my first book, AIDS INC., Scandal of the Century. Among other conclusions, I pointed out that HIV had never been shown to cause human illness; the front-line drug given to AIDS patients, AZT, was overwhelmingly toxic; and what was being called AIDS was actually a diverse number immune-suppressing conditions.

Others of you have found my work more recently. I always return to the subject of false science, because it is the most powerful long-term instrument for repression, political control, and destruction of human life.

As I’ve stated on many occasions, medical science is ideal for mounting and launching covert ops aimed at populations—because it appears to be politically neutral, without any allegiance to State interests.

Unfortunately, medical science, on many fronts, has been hijacked and taken over. The profit motive is one objective, but beyond that, there is a more embracing goal:

Totalitarian control.

On the issue of vaccines, I’ve written much about their dangers and ineffectiveness. But also consider this: the push for mandatory vaccination goes a long way toward creating a herd effect—which is really a social construction.

In other words, parents are propagandized to think of themselves as a kind of synthetic artificial “community.”

“Here we are. We are the fathers and mothers. We must all protect our children against the outliers, the rebels, the defectors, the crazy ones who refuse to vaccinate their own children. We are all in this together. They are the threat. The enemy. We are good. We know the truth. They are evil.”

This “community of the willing” are dedicated to what the government tells them. They are crusaders imbued with group-think. They run around promoting “safety and protection.” This group consciousness is entirely an artifact, propelled by official science.

The crusaders are, in effect, agents of the State.

They are created by the State.

Androids.

They live in an absurd Twilight Zone where fear of germs (the tiny invisible terrorists) demands coercive action against the individuals who see through the whole illusion.

This is what official science can achieve. This is how it can enlist obedient foot soldiers and spies who don’t have the faintest idea about how they’re being used.

This is a variant on Orwell’s 1984. The citizens are owned by the all-embracing State, but they aren’t even aware of it.

That’s quite a trick.

One of my favorite examples of double-think or reverse-think is the antibody test. It is given to diagnosis diseases. Antibodies are immune-system scouts sent out to identify germ-intruders, which can then be wiped out by other immune-system troops.

Prior to 1985, the prevailing view of a positive antibody test was: the patient is doing well; his body detected the germ and dispensed with it. After 1985, the view was suddenly: this is bad news; the patient is sick or he is on the verge of getting sick; he has the germ in his body; it does harm.

Within the medical community, no one (with very few exceptions) raised hell over this massive switch. It was accepted. It was actually good for business. Now, many more people could be labeled “needs treatment,” whereas before, they would have been labeled “healthy.”

While I was writing my first book, AIDS INC., in 1987-8, I wrote the FDA asking about a possible AIDS vaccine. I was told the following: every person given such a vaccine would, of course, produce antibodies against HIV. That is the whole purpose of a vaccine: to produce antibodies.

However, I was informed, patients receiving this vaccine would be given a letter to carry with them, in case they were ever tested for HIV and came up positive. The letter would explain that the antibodies causing the positive test were the result of the vaccine, not the result of “natural” action inside the patient’s body.

In other words, the very same antibodies were either protective against AIDS (good) or indicative of deadly disease (bad).

This was the contradictory and ridiculous and extraordinary pronouncement of official science.

It carries over into every disease for which an antibody test is administered. If a vaccine against disease X is given, it delivers immunity, because it produces antibodies. But if a diagnostic test for disease X reveals the presence of the same antibodies, naturally produced in the body, this is taken as a sign of illness.

Extrapolated to a more general level, the Word is: synthetic medical treatment is good; the action of the body to heal itself is incompetent.

This is a type of superstition that would astonish even the most “primitive” societies.

It no longer astonishes me. I see it everywhere in official science.

From the medical establishment’s point of view, being alive is a medical condition.

The most useful politicians—as far as official science is concerned—are those who automatically promote its findings. Such politicians are lifted into prominence. They are champions of the Science Matrix. They never ask questions. They never doubt. They never make waves. They blithely travel their merry way into new positions of power, knowing they have enormous elite support behind them. When they need to lie, they lie. They are taught that those who question or reject official science are a tiny ‘demographic’ who can be ignored during election campaigns. ‘Don’t worry about them. They don’t count.’ These politicians are never in the trenches with the people on issues of health.

The elite Plan is universal collectivism, in which all citizens are atoms of a giant molecule. Many lies need to be told in order to make that dream/nightmare come true. If some of those lies are about science, so much the better. People believe in science.

Think about the agendas behind universal vaccination, climate change, universal psychiatric treatment, GMO food, and other ‘science-based’ frauds. They all imply a model, in which individuals give up their power in exchange for ‘doing good’ and becoming members of the largest group in the world: ‘disabled’ people with needs that must be addressed and satisfied.

Instead of supporting the liberation of the individual, the controllers want to squash it. Why? Because they fear individual power. It is forever the unpredictable wild card. They want a society in which every thought an individual thinks connects him to a greater whole—and if that sounds attractive, understand that this Whole is a fiction, intentionally faked to resemble a genuine oceanic feeling. The elite Whole is ultimately a trance-like fiction that will slow down time to a crawl, and shrink space to a sliver, and focus attention on a single mandate: wait for the next instruction from above, content in the knowledge that it will benefit all of humanity.”

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

“Global solution” means the individual is cut out of the equation, he doesn’t count, he doesn’t mean anything in the larger scheme of things, he’s just another pawn and cipher to move around on the board.

This is purposeful.

This is the script for the future: create problems whose only solution appears to be collective.

Psychologically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually divert the individual’s attention from his own vision, his own profound desires, his own imagination—and place it within The Group (“all of humanity”).

Propagandize the idea that, if the individual concerns himself with anything other than The Group, he is selfish, greedy, inhumane. He is a criminal.

More and more, this is how the young are being trained these days.

The grand “we” is being sold to them like a cheap street drug. They buy in. They believe this “we” is real, instead of a hollow con designed to drag them into a Globalist framework owned and operated by mega-corporations, banks, foundations, governments, and ubiquitous Rockefeller interests.

And what of the individual, his mind, his unique perception, his independent ideas, his originality, his life-force?

Swept away in the rush toward “a better world.”

I have breaking news. Earth is not a spaceship and we are not crew members. If Earth is a spaceship, it has serious design flaws, because it keeps making the same trip around the same sun every year.

Each one of us does not have a specified function, as a crew member would.

Going back as far as you want to in history, shortage and scarcity in the world that engendered a crisis was either created by some elite or maintained by them, for the purpose of eradicating dissent and fomenting a collectivist solution. Meaning a solution that came from the top. Meaning a solution that reduced individual freedom.

In recent human history, a different idea emerged: establish severely hamstrung government, in order to protect the individual against it.

This idea has had a very tough time. Collectivists have fought it every step of the way.

But regardless of circumstances, the individual can author his own freedom and what it implies. He can discover, within himself, extraordinary possibilities. He can contemplate what it means to create reality that expresses his most profound desires.

And then he can begin a voyage that no one and no group can stop.

Civilizations come and go, rise and fall; the individual remains.

The word “imagination,” when properly understood, indicates that the individual can envision and then create futures that never were, and never would be, unless he invented them.

Imagination is the opposite of “provincial,” “restricted,” “well-known,” “familiar,” “accepted.”

That is its challenge to the status quo.

That is the true threat the individual poses to all predictive systems.

Therefore, “it’s all just information” is a psyop code-phrase. Ideas, thoughts—nothing is original, nothing is new; we all “share” information floating in the collective consciousness; the individual invents nothing.

Which is the opposite of the truth. The individual invents everything.

He can’t be predicted when he is himself. He is not a pattern. He is not a system.

He is not anyone else.

He thrives on his own inspiration.

He is the ultimate riverboat gambler. He bets the house on his own as-yet uncreated future.

He is not a piece of universe.

He is not a humble servant of Order.

He invents the space and time of his own time to come.

As early as 1961, a brilliant healer, Richard Jenkins, whom I write about in my book, The Secret Behind Secret Societies (part of the Exit From The Matrix collection), explained what was to come. He wrote me a note, which I’m paraphrasing from memory: “People are confusing their own empathy for others with some inflated idea about group-identity. They aren’t the same. People are becoming afraid of their own unique and distinct existence. This is a social fear. A new social contract is being foisted on the population. Either you belong, or you have no rights. This is a totalitarian concept. It’s coming in through the back door.”

Well, now, it’s right there at the front door.

The individual still has a choice. But he has to make it.

Explore his own power, or give it away for nothing more than an illusion of belonging.

Stoke the fires within, or form a diluted image of self, and bow down to The Group.

The “I” is not isolated. He can reach out to others whenever and however he wants to. The question is, is he moving on the ground of his own independence, or is he searching for a group life raft, to which he will attach himself without thought or hesitation?

Beyond economics or politics, Globalism is a system that offers a life raft which is heading toward a machine-future. Disembark and find the great We, a construct of integrated parts, each of which is an individual, in a state of spiritual amnesia.

Happiness there is function and sedation, shadowless, wiped clean of distinctions.

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

This is such a supercharged subject, I could start from a dozen places.

But let’s begin here: the individual is unique, because he is himself. He is unique because he has his own ideas, because he has his own desires, because he has his own power. That power belongs to no one else.

In particular, it doesn’t belong to the State. The State will always try to suggest that it is granting power to the individual, but this is a lie. A lie broadcast with ill-intent.

While everyone else is trying to manufacture connections to the group, under the banner of a false sense of community, the individual is going in the opposite direction.

Philip K Dick: “Insanity—to have to construct a picture of one’s life, by making inquiries of others.”

Consensus reality is the reality of sacrifice. It is coagulating energy, form, content, substance that takes on amorphous shapes studded with slots into which people can fit themselves.

The independent individual thinks what he wants to think. Over time, he keeps graduating into new, more nearly unique levels of what he wants to think.

He rises to his own thoughts.

There is no subject and no substance which is not infiltrated by consensus reality. Wherever you look, you will encounter it. The group is the basis of consensus reality, and the group-pact extends everywhere. The group fears a sector where only individual thought can tread.

That would be dangerous to the illusion. “Well, we’ve got things well in hand in most places, but over there and over here we’re not in charge.”

No, that doesn’t work for the group. The exceptions would blow a hole in the rule.

“Stay away from the corner of Lexington Avenue and 34th Street. Something too weird is going on there. We come in and try to inject consensus on that spot and it doesn’t work. Our ‘sharing’ energy bounces off that corner. We may have to call in the troops to surround the place and cordon it off.”

“Group consensus is fraying and fragmenting in Area 768-B! Call the professors and pundits! Discredit the individual! Call him a monster! Do something fast!”

Consensus reality is an illusion in the sense that you can see it and I can see it, but we didn’t sign up for it.

The individual can opt out. That doesn’t necessarily mean the consensus disappears; you can still see it, but you see it without accepting it.

You can see the oasis in the desert and know it is a mirage. You have your own water, you don’t have to run toward the mirage and fall down on your knees and try to drink from the pool.

Philip K. Dick: “Because today we live in a society in which spurious realities are manufactured by the media, by governments, by big corporations, by religious groups, political groups…increasingly, we are bombarded with pseudo-realities manufactured by very sophisticated electronic mechanisms…And this is an astounding power: that of creating whole universes, universes of the mind. I ought to know. I do the same thing.”

The strong and free individual evolves. He doesn’t stay the same. He continues to emerge with new ideas, new energy, new invention. He becomes larger. He gains more power.

When the illusion of consensus reality attains a level beyond mere slogan, it enters the realm of systems. This is its most convincing format. A system appears to be watertight. Each one of its parts has relations with the whole.

This is interesting, because that mirrors what a group is. Each member is a part that connects to the whole.

Consensus as a system is like a game of chess that plays the same moves over and over. Game one is the same as game two, three, four…

That’s where its illusion of power comes from.

The individual, though, doesn’t proceed according to systems. He isn’t moving from one closed context to another.

Consensus is the coin of the realm. It is forced from the top, and it is signed up for at the bottom. One hand washes the other.

Societies may begin through consensus, but if they have any courage, they shift focus to the job of pulling away coercive restraints on the individual. Regardless, the individual asserts his freedom. It is his to begin with, not the group’s. No one gives it to him.

Earth’s societies have moved rapidly to an inverse, an upside down structure, in which freedom is looked upon as a privilege grudgingly accorded in the absence of a reason to take it away.

The group has conception of Normal. Normal is like a message passed around, from hand to hand, and when you look at it closely, for content, it dissolves. There was really nothing there.

Group consensus is mindless hive-action covering a vacuum.

Here is what occasionally happens to people who have hidebound political ideologies. The people on the Left move further and further to the Left, and the people on the Right move further and further to the Right. Finally, they are both so distant from the State they meet and stare at each other in shock. At that point, they are just individuals.

“But society runs on groups! It must have groups!”

And what? The individual must give in and join and belong?

Consensus reality is a cartoon that is trying to become as real as steel. What deconstructs the steel and exposes the cartoon? There is only one thing that can do that. Nothing and no one else is going to do that.

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

One thing you have to understand about Mr. Zucker. What he does, he does for show. For ratings. If he could get away with claiming Trump met with Putin on the dark side of the moon to concoct a way to beat Hillary Clinton, he would run with it. If he could get away with claiming Arnold Schwarzenegger was the love child of Joseph Stalin and Greta Garbo, he would lead the evening newscast with it. He keeps selling the CNN Trump-Russia “investigation” because he’s (barely) getting away with it and he thinks it’ll keep drawing an audience.

In April, CNN boss Jeff Zucker told the New York Times, “The idea that politics is sport is undeniable, and we understood that and approached it that way.” The “it” was certainly the 2016 presidential campaign.

Zucker always has understood politics in this corrupt way—and in the process, he helped elect a US president and a California governor.

Who is Trump’s most consistent media enemy now? CNN is right up there.

But Jeff Zucker, CNN’s boss, was the man who launched The Apprentice, starring Donald Trump, at NBC, in 2004.

In other words, Zucker happened to play a major role in electing Donald Trump. There is no getting around it.

Washington Post, October 2, 2016: “Looking for someone specific to hold responsible for the improbable rise of Donald Trump?”

“Although there are many options, you could do worse than to take a hard look at Jeff Zucker, president of CNN Worldwide.”

“It was Zucker, after all, who as the new head of NBC Entertainment gave Trump his start in reality TV with ‘The Apprentice’ and then milked the real estate developer’s uncanny knack for success for all it was worth in ratings and profits.”

“And it succeeded wildly — boosting the network’s ratings, as well as Zucker’s [and Trump’s] meteoric career. In turn, under Zucker, the show gave rise to ‘Celebrity Apprentice,’ another Trump extravaganza. And, in turn, Zucker became the head of NBC overall.”

“The show [The Apprentice] was built as a virtually nonstop advertisement for the Trump empire and lifestyle,” according to the book ‘Trump Revealed,’ by Washington Post journalists Marc Fisher and Michael Kranish.”

“But make no mistake: There would be no Trump-the-politician without Trump-the-TV-star. One begot the other.”

POLITICS IS TELEVISION, AND TELEVISION IS POLITICS.

If you’re looking for a person who embodies that fake version of reality most purely, you need look no further than Jeff Zucker.

Despite his network’s present hatred of Trump, Zucker would give Trump his own show right now if he wanted one.

For ratings and ad revenues.

Let’s go back in time and consider another event, one which I’ve analyzed in great detail. It took place on NBC in 2004, when Zucker was the head of the network’s entertainment division. Keep in mind that The Tonight Show, with Jeno Leno, was a prime piece of the entertainment division then. What Leno pulled off in 2004 had to have the OK from Zucker, because it was a highly unusual move, a distinctly unethical move.

What happened when an actor wanted to launch a political career and become a governor? The whole news division of a major network surrendered itself, for one ratings-busting night, to a talk show.

This is how Arnold Schwarzenegger won the California governor’s race. It all came down to his famous appearance on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, where he announced that he was going to run.

I obtained a copy of show, watched it many times, transcribed the dialogue, and noted the audience reactions.

Breaking down the segments revealed what happens when news and entertainment and PR and political advocacy all blur together in a single wave.

The show had been hyped as the moment when Arnold would announce whether he was going to run in the recall election against California Governor Gray Davis.

The public anticipation was sky-high. No one seemed concerned that NBC was turning over its news division, for one night, to its entertainment division. Jeff Zucker, head of NBC entertainment, was all in.

Turning over network news to network entertainment was precisely the subject of the best movie ever made about television, Paddy Chayefsky’s Network. That didn’t register with the national media.

If Arnold decided to run for governor, he wouldn’t be announcing it at a stale press conference at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel, after a brief introduction from The Snoozer, LA Mayor Richard Riordan. No, Arnold would obtain a rocket boost from Jay Leno.

Keep in mind that talk shows warm up and prep their studio audiences to act and respond with amphetamine-like enthusiasm.

And then that audience transmits its glow and howling racket to the wider television audience, thereby blowing an artificially enhanced event across the landscape.

On the night of August 6, 2003, Tonight Show host Jay Leno devoted two six-minute segments to The Arnold.

Of course, it was more than an interview. Jay had been touting this night as the occasion for a key revelation in the comic play called The California Recall Election.

Arnold would say yes or Arnold would say no. He would run for governor or he would decline.

Bigger than conventional news, Arnold strode out on to Jay’s stage. A Tonight Show camera picked him up from a grossly complimentary low angle, making him appear even larger and more physically imposing than he is. Jay was positioned standing behind him, applauding, lending an affirmative gloss to the entrance. Already, it looked and felt political.

This was not a beginning; the impression was of something already in motion, a train to catch up with.

As the man of the hour sat down next to Jay, he commented that there was a big audience in the house (“Can you believe all these people here?”) and, capping his first gambit, he stated that every one of them was running for governor of California. Ha-ha. (At one point, there were 135 gubernatorial candidates.)

Quickly, Jay gets down to business. The business of making the evening extra-special: “Now, I don’t think we’ve ever had this much press at The Tonight Show for any—[let’s look at] our press room—normally [the press] sit in the audience.”

Cut to a stark room, shot from above. About 40 reporters doing almost nothing at tables. Obviously, the room was set up for this event.

Jay cracks a couple of jokes about the press gaggle, lowers his voice and turns his full attention to Arnold: “…it’s been weeks…and people going back and forth…taken you awhile, and you said you would come here tonight and tell us your decision. So what is your decision?”

Arnold replies, “Well, Jay, after thinking for a long time, my decision is…”

The sound cuts off, and the TV screen displays an old PLEASE STAND BY notice. Thick white letters against a background of an ancient station test pattern from the 1950s. A mechanical tone plays for several seconds.

Jay, going along—as if Arnold had spilled the beans during a momentary technical malfunction—shouts, “Right, good, right! I tell you I am shocked! I can’t believe it! I can’t believe it!”

Jay then starts out from the bottom again. “[Whether you’re going to run has been] in my monologue…it’s been good for, like, a thousand jokes over the last couple of weeks…”

Once more, he gently poses the question. “What are you going to do?” It’s still too early for an answer, and Jay knows it.

Arnold wants another false start. He’s planned it.

“Well, my decision obviously is a very difficult decision to make, you know…it was the [most] difficult decision that I’ve made in my entire life, except the one in 1978 when I decided to get a bikini wax.”

Laughter, applause, whistles.

The studio audience warms to the fact that Arnold glimpses an absurdity about the whole proceeding.

“He’s our Arnie, laughing the way we laugh. Hell, all we’ve got are laughs in this life, and our boy isn’t going to go stuffed-shirt on us.”

Arnold then gives his rehearsed political speech.

He reflects that California was a grand land of opportunity when he arrived in 1968. It was the greatest state in the greatest nation.

However, now the atmosphere in California is “disastrous,” he says. There is a “disconnect” (thank you, pop psych 101) between the people and the politicians.

“The politicians are fiddling, fumbling, and failing.”

Very big applause follows. The audience is doing its job.

Close by, off camera, we hear Jay thumping his own personal hand claps. The host is pumping his studio crowd and giving his seal of approval to a remark whose veracity is supposed to be tested by the recall election itself.

And there is a phalanx of teen-age girls screaming at a very high pitch in the studio. They’re adding a major element of hysterical enthusiasm. Where did they come from? Are they a legitimate Arnold demographic? Were they pulled out of a Valley mall to paper the crowd? Do they migrate from talk show to talk show? From this point forward, they’ll play a huge role in every audience outburst.

Arnold gathers steam. He tells one and all that the people of California are doing their job.

They’re working hard.

Paying their taxes.

Raising their families.

But the politicians are not doing their job.

Now he executes a blend around the far turn: “And the man that is failing the people more than anyone is [Governor] Gray Davis!”

The crowd goes wild. The girls scream as if they’re at a kiddie rock concert in the magic presence of four sixteen-year-old pretty boys. It’s eerie.

And now the audience is suddenly on edge.

They can handle the juice. The longed-for result.

Arnold senses it.

He lets the audience-hysteria roller coaster die down and then, taking it up to heaven, announces that, he, Arnold is…

Yes…

GOING TO RUN FOR GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA.

Boom. Bang. Pow. Zow.

The studio audience cracks the ceiling. Wilder than wild. The girls are shrieking walls of sound way above high C. Undoubtedly, the show is flashing applause signs.

Jay shakes his head and grins like a pro hypster who’s just witnessed a very, very good variation on bait and switch. As if Arnold was supposed to say no, but now he’s saying yes.

The Tonight Show band lays down some heavy chords.

Jay shouts, “There you go! There you go! That woke ‘em up! That woke ‘em up!” We cut to the press room, and sure enough, the reporters are now on phones, typing at their keyboards. The story is live and good to go. A global event is underway.

Amid the roar and the music, Jay, smiling broadly and wisely, shakes his finger at Arnold and says to him, “You know something?”

It seems Jay’s about to utter, “That’s the best damn switcheroo I ever saw!” But he doesn’t do it. Instead, as the noise abates, he says it’s a good time to go to a break.

The band plows into a funk riff, under the applause, and the show cuts to commercial.

The sea has parted. The consecration has been performed.

The ax felled the tree in the forest, and everyone heard it.

Marshall McLuhan rolled over in his grave, sat up, grinned, lit a cigar, and sipped a little brandy.

After the commercials, in the next six-minute segment, Jay and Arnold attain a few more highs of audience madness.

High one: Arnold mentions that 1.6 million Californians have signed the recall petition and are saying, “We are mad as hell and we are not going to take it anymore!” Wowee.

No one notices or remembers this line was made massively famous in Network, the bitter satire on news as entertainment.

Is it remotely possible Arnold recalls the 1976 Paddy Chayefsky film and its newsman, Howard Beale, who survives a ratings dive by delivering a delirious populist message on air, and becomes, for a short time, the most revered man in America?

Is it possible Arnold knows the TV network portrayed in the film gave its news division to its entertainment division—exactly what’s transpiring right there, for the moment, on The Tonight Show?

High two: Arnold clarifies his message to all politicians everywhere. “Do your job for the people and do it well, or otherwise you’re out. Hasta la vista, baby!” Zowee.

High three: After telling the crowd they all know Gray Davis can run a dirty campaign “better than anyone”—and that Davis has been selling off pieces of California to special interests—Arnold says with conviction and confidence, “I do not have to bow to any special interests; I have plenty of money; no one can pay me off; trust me, no one.” Audience hysteria. They love that he’s rich.

High four: Arnold says of Davis, “Everyone knows this man has to go!” Huge roar.

High five: Arnold plays a final pun card. “I will pump up Sacramento!” Yet another roar.

The band takes it out with more funk. Jay stands up and goes over and hugs Arnold, in profile, near his desk, and follows him closely toward an exit at stage left. Jay starts to whisper something in Arnold’s ear, but pulls back and smiles and, still on camera, applauds Arnold along with the audience.

It’s show biz in a bottle. Jay, Arnold, the crowd, the band, bouncing off one another and yielding the effect of absolute (synthetic) thrill.

The Tonight Show provided the moment for a globally famous actor to decide to run for office in the same state where the show originates. In the entertainment capital of the world. In front of the clear prime-cut admiration of the host.

And the studio audience, that specialized creature from whose maw instant credibility can be coaxed and birthed in seconds—was very, very ready to go. All along.

Imagine an advance man pre-selling this kind of PR stunt:

“I know a guy who can introduce your message to the softest, wildest, water-cooler crowd this side of paradise.”

“Oh yeah? How big a crowd?”

“Only a thousand or two. But they’re instantly hooked up to, say, ten million people in the target area. It’s as infectious as Ebola.”

“Come on.”

“And that’s not all. I’ve got a host for that softest, wildest audience, and he has the whole world in the palm of his hand. When he exposes your message—for the first time anywhere—and when his audience goes nuts with glee, nothing will stand in your way. Your opponents will go down like bowling pins.”

“Too good to be true.”

“Wrong. And let me point out what I’m saving you from. If you tried to launch your message at a shopping center or a press club or a hotel ballroom or construction site or on a movie-studio sound stage, you could get laughed right out of town. Really. Because, let’s face it, you do have a pretty vapid message when you boil it down. You need a unique venue, where the joke and the camp and the craziness are all folded into the event itself, and the shock and surprise and hoopla are integrated. You need an audience that celebrates bad and good jokes as all good, and the host has the ability to marry up every shred of this bizarre happening and take his crowd to orgasm.”

“And the contagion factor?”

“The audience in the television studio and the viewing audience at home are One. My boy, what stuns and delights the former incorporates itself into the living cells of the latter. The home audience is terrified of being left out. The host and his in-studio crowd give instant universal legitimacy to the moment. Believe me, it’s irresistible.”

“Like that McLuhan thing. The audience becomes the actor.”

“Precisely.”

That is how it happened. That is how Arnold Schwarzenegger obtained his billion-dollar ad on Jay Leno, on August 6, 2003, and that was when he won the recall election. There was no counter-strategy for it.

Governor Gray Davis was left out in the cold.

The announcement of Arnold’s candidacy was the end of the election.

In the aftermath, media pundits did not punch up this piece of mind control with any serious heat; nor did they immediately seek a heavy investigation of NBC’s ethics in allowing the Leno-Arnold event to take place.

The Tonight Show was a perfect killing ground: Arnold, the earnest and powerful and Germanically jolly and occasionally self-deprecating soul, aware of the comic-book component of his success; Jay, the jokester, who can work as a homer and straight man at the drop of a hat; and Jay’s audience, willingly propelled into the late-night nexus of “we’ll laugh so hard at any old damn thing we’ll make a cosmic celebration out of it.”

Something out of nothing.

GE (then the owner of NBC): “We bring good things to life.”

An election campaign message was passed, hand to hand, mind to mind, adrenal gland to adrenal gland, from a concocted, groomed, cultivated, prepackaged television studio audience to every voter-district in California, and out to the whole world.

When people show up in the studio to see Leno in person, they soon understand the game. They’re not just there as happy onlookers. They’re drawn into the process. They’re offered a trade-off.

If they become active shills for the show right there in the studio, they’ll become part of the story. They’ll attain new status. Their laughs and squeals and shrieks and rebound guffaws, their revved-up salvational applause, at those moments when a guest segment or a joke is falling flat, will provide key segue and filler and affirmation and speed candy for the larger audience at home. It’s a group collaboration.

Who cares—except when a fading movie action hero suddenly says he’s going to take over the reins of California?

In the television studio, and in millions of homes, the audience roared and helped Arnold go for his coronation. They experienced a reasonable facsimile of emotional torque and busted a move that showered sparks around Arnold’s head and pushed him through a porthole into an ozone that just might have been the closest thing they’d ever find to immortality.

On October 10, three days after Arnold scored number one in the recall vote count, The NY Times ran a piece by Bill Carter headlined, “NBC Supports the Politically Partisan Leno.”

But Carter’s story was merely about Jay, on the night of October 7, taking the stage in Los Angeles to introduce Arnold as the recall election winner.

THIS was the issue? This was the barrier that Leno had crossed? Carter mentioned nothing about those 12 minutes on August 6th, on The Tonight Show, when Arnold announced he was running and thereby sewed up the election.

Jeff Zucker, then the head of entertainment at NBC (NOW THE BOSS AT CNN), told Carter he was aware Jay was going to introduce Arnold at the victory celebration. “I did not and do not have a problem with it,” he said.

Zucker noted that Jay was a private citizen with all the accruing rights of same.

Not a word from Zucker either, about the propriety of Leno hosting Arnold’s campaign launch on August 6, on The Tonight Show.

The Studio Audience, on the night of August 6, 2003, fingered and chose and elected a governor of California.

Jay Leno has gone on to thousands of other jokes.

But he’ll never forget that one.

And neither will Zucker.

He helped elect Arnold. And he made Trump a global star of the first magnitude on The Apprentice, and thereby helped him win the presidency.

If you like interesting coincidences, both the Leno Moment and launch of The Apprentice happened in 2004. And when Donald Trump left The Apprentice in 2015, who took over as the host?

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here

The basic purpose of these ten forms: the presentation of a false picture of reality.

You could find more forms, or divide these ten into sub-categories.

The ten basic forms are:

* Direct lying about matters of fact. (This sometimes includes doubling down on lies already told, or telling a bigger lie after the first one.)

* Leaving out vital information.

* Limited hangout. (This is an admission of a crime or a mistake, which only partially reveals the whole truth. The idea is that by admitting a fraction of what really happened and burying the biggest revelations, people will be satisfied and go away, and the story will never be covered again.)

* Shutting down the truth after publishing it—includes failing to follow up and investigate a story more deeply.

* Not connecting dots between important pieces of data.

* Censoring the truth, wherever it is found (or calling it “fake news”).

* Using biased “experts” to present slanted or false “facts.”

* Repeating a false story many times—this includes the echo-chamber effect, in which a number of outlets “bounce” the false story among themselves.

* Claiming a reasonable and true consensus exists, when it doesn’t, when there are many important dissenters, who are shut out from offering their analysis.

* Employing a panoply of effects (reputation of the media outlet, voice quality of the anchor, acting skills, dry mechanical language, studio lighting, overlay of electronic transmissions, etc.) to create an impression of elevated authority which is beyond challenge.

These are all traditional forms and methods.

Here’s an example of a big story that deployed all ten forms of fake news: the Swine Flu pandemic of 2009.

In the spring of 2009, the World Health Organization (elevated authority whose pronouncements are beyond challenge) announced that Swine Flu was a level-6 pandemic—its highest category of “danger.” In fact, there were only 20 confirmed cases at the time (direct lying about “danger”). And W.H.O. quietly changed the definition of “level-6” so widespread death and damage were no longer required (another aspect of direct lying).

The story was, of course, picked up by major media outlets all over the world (echo chamber effect, fake consensus, never connected dots re W.H.O. lies), and quite soon, Swine Flu case numbers rose into the thousands (direct lying, as we’ll soon see).

Medical experts were brought in to bolster the claims of danger (biased experts; important dissenters never given space to comment).

In the early fall of 2009, Sharyl Attkisson, then a star investigative reporter for CBS News, published a story on the CBS News website. She indicated that the CDC had secretly stopped counting the number of Swine Flu cases in America. No other major news outlet reported this fact (omitting vital information).

Attkisson discovered the reason the CDC had stopped counting: the overwhelming number of blood samples taken from the most likely Swine Flu patients were coming back from labs with: no trace of Swine Flu or any other kind of flu. Therefore, a gigantic hoax was revealed. The pandemic was a dud, a fake.

Despite Attkisson’s efforts, CBS never followed up on her story (shutting down the truth after exposing it). Never probed the lying by the CDC (failure to connect dots). In a sense, CBS turned Attkisson’s story into a limited hangout—a further investigation would have uncovered acres of criminal behavior by both the CDC and the World Health Organization, to say nothing of the governments and media outlets that supported these lying agencies. The mainstream press essentially censored Attkisson’s revelations.

Then, about three weeks after CBS published Attkisson’s story, WebMD published a piece in which the CDC claimed that its own (lying) estimate of 10,000 or so cases of Swine Flu in the US was a gross understatement. Truly, there were 22 MILLION cases of Swine Flu in the US (doubling-down on lying).

And that was that.

And these mainstream sources are currently shouting and bloviating about independent media spreading fake news. I guess you could call that number 11: accusing their opponents of committing the crimes they are, in fact, committing.

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

At college a few lifetimes ago, one of my earliest experiences was reading Yeats’ Sailing to Byzantium. Here is the famous last stanza:

Once out of nature I shall never take
My bodily form from any natural thing,
But such a form as Grecian goldsmiths make
Of hammered gold and gold enamelling
To keep a drowsy Emperor awake;
Or set upon a golden bough to sing
To lords and ladies of Byzantium
Of what is past, or passing, or to come.

At the time, in those college years, it was well understood that you learned some things for their own sake. You didn’t even have to agree with the sentiment expressed. You could appreciate the expression.

Certain expressions were aesthetic and spiritual and alive in their own way. Argument on that score was unnecessary.

What about the opening lines of Dylan Thomas’ Fern Hill? If they don’t take you off your chair, read them out loud a few times:

Now as I was young and easy under the apple boughs
About the lilting house and happy as the grass was green,
The night above the dingle starry,
Time let me hail and climb
Golden in the heydays of his eyes,
And honoured among wagons I was prince of the apple towns
And once below a time I lordly had the trees and leaves
Trail with daisies and barley
Down the rivers of the windfall light.

No one asked the student how he was going to use those words of a poem when he was working, years later, for a bank. No one asked him how he was going make the words count when he was fronting for a suit filed by a corporation. No one said he had to postpone appreciating poetry because injustices still existed in the world.

Education can expose students to glorious things they will never apply.

Yet, those things can transform their lives.

As civilization declines, an impression is imparted that there are only crises. Every event is some kind of crisis.

If that were true, what would be left over? What inner life would be possible?

What joy could be experienced for its own sake?

All of this leads me back to a theme I’ve covered from many different angles over the years. Reality, ordinary reality is not the end-all and be-all.

Art, for example, proves that.

The thrill of actual poetry proves that.

Why do I bother saying all this? Because part of what it means to have a civilization is part of what it means to be an individual: there is a profound appreciation of human creations. When that goes by the boards, when education ignores that because “more important issues” must be presented and framed and slanted, for purposes of sheer indoctrination, life-force drains away.

Elevated language taken to poetic heights is not a mere distraction.

Many years ago, when I was working at a community college, I started an informal poetry project. I brought together a small group of foreign students and taped them reading poems in their own languages (Portuguese, ancient Persian, English, etc.). I wanted them to hear the sounds of those poems, apart from their meaning. I wanted them to hear the music(s).

Now we’re talking about real diversity, not the fake imposed version. Now we’re talking about great energies that have been injected into, and fortified in, many languages by individual poets from all times and places.

Now we’re talking about the heights those cultures reached, not the depths to which they sank.

Now we’re talking about an authentic level of understanding reaching across bridges and gaps.

There is something very right about that.

Burned flowers of the field
My noon is over, growing old
Everything I have is finally sold
Sewed designs for men with money
Thinking it was duty
To watch them lead the world to war
From my little field of beauty

I wrote that poem when I was 23. It was published in 1966, in The Massachusetts Review. At the time, I was focused on the break-up of The American Dream. Soon after, I had my moment of insight, when it became clear to me that individuals and their minds and imaginations and choices could exceed the negative reach of any civilization and, at the same time, fertilize that civilization. Reality (things as they are) is not the answer; it is the lowest common denominator, which waits for people to sign declarations of surrender.

From search algorithm fine-tuning to social media shadow banning and filter bubble traps, this ain’t your granddaddy censorship. Join James for this thought for the day as he explores censorship 21st century style and what we can do about it.

Now they’ve gone so far to include prepaid mobile phones, retail gift vouchers, or even electronic coupons. Evil, evil, and evil.

These people are certifiably insane.

Among the bill’s sweeping provisions, the government aims to greatly extend its authority to seize your assets through “Civil Asset Forfeiture”.

Civil Asset Forfeiture rules allow the government to take whatever they want from you, without a trial or any due process.

This new bill adds a laundry list of offenses for which they can legally seize your assets… all of which pertain to money laundering and other financial crimes.

Here’s the thing, though: they’ve also vastly expanded on the definition of such ‘financial crimes’, including failure to fill out a form if you happen to be transporting more than $10,000 worth of ‘monetary instruments’.

Have too much cash? You’d better tell the government.

If not, they’re authorizing themselves in this bill to seize not just the money you didn’t report, but ALL of your assets and bank accounts.

They even go so far as to specifically name “safety deposit boxes” among the various assets that they can seize if you don’t fill out the form.

It’s crazy to begin with that these people are so consumed by the fact that someone has $10,000 in cash.

But it’s even crazier that they’re threatening to take EVERYTHING that you own merely for not filling out a piece of paper, without any due process whatsoever.

Oh, and on top of civil asset forfeiture penalties, there are also criminal penalties.

Right now according to current law they can imprison you for up to FIVE YEARS for not filling out the form. Five years.

But apparently that doesn’t go far enough to protect us against evil men in caves.

So this bill aims to double the criminal penalty to TEN years in prison.

And if that weren’t enough, this bill also gives them with new authority to engage in surveillance and wiretapping (including phone, email, etc.) if they have even a hint of suspicion that you might be transporting excess ‘monetary instruments’.

Usually wiretapping authority is reserved for major crimes like kidnapping, human trafficking, felony fraud, etc.

Now we can add cash to that list.

It’s not just government spy agencies to worry about, either.

Banks in the US are already unpaid government spies, required by law to fill out suspicious activity reports on their customers.

Then Congress started expanding those requirements to include other businesses and industries that might come into contact with cash.

I’ve always conceived of my work as “up one side, down the other.” Expose the roots of the major covert ops of our time; expose the power of the individual to mount his own “op” for a better future.

In this journey of many years, I’ve come to a conclusion: a person looking at the world to obtain clues about his own potential and power is looking through the wrong end of the telescope. He’s bound to come to wrong decisions.

He skirts the edge of: I can’t succeed because the corrupt world is organized to fail.

This idea takes you into the morass, into the quicksand.

Yes, a person needs to understand what is going on at a deep level in the world—this is vital, but it’s a prelude. A beginning.

The real meaning of power is creative power. And that pertains to the individual, not the group. So the question becomes: what does a given individual profoundly want to create?

Limitation, inaction, and self-sabotage may be a few of the characteristics of society, but the individual doesn’t have to reflect them.

Nor does he need to reflect notions like “average,” “normal,” and “status quo.” They are meat grinders that turn out typical sausage.

Speaking of society, it’s instructive to read what authors wrote about core values a hundred or two hundred years ago, because then you can appreciate what has happened to the culture of a nation. Try to imagine these famous and celebrated authors from the past gaining prominence in the mainstream now:

“All greatness of character is dependent on individuality. The man who has no other existence than that which he partakes in common with all around him, will never have any other than an existence of mediocrity.” — James Fenimore Cooper

“The less government we have, the better, — the fewer laws, and the less confided power. The antidote to this abuse of [by] formal Government, is, the influence of private character, the growth of the Individual.” — Ralph Waldo Emerson

“The former generations acted under the belief that a shining social prosperity was the beatitude of man, and sacrificed uniformly the citizen to the State. The modern mind believed that the nation existed for the individual, for the guardianship and education of every man. This idea, roughly written in revolutions and national movements, in the mind of the philosopher had far more precision; the individual is the world.” — Ralph Waldo Emerson

“If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.” — Henry David Thoreau

“They [conformists] think society wiser than their soul, and know not that one soul, and their soul, is wiser than the whole world…Society everywhere is in conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members….Whoso would be a man, must be a nonconformist…. Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind.” — Ralph Waldo Emerson

Can you imagine, today, any of these statements gaining traction in mainstream media?

But the fact that the culture has devolved doesn’t get the present-day individual off the hook.

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Having read two books by Rand, and having them offer much for rumination, I got The Art Of Non-Fiction to dig deeper into Rand’s process of writing. Thankfully, book offered much to glean from, and it showed what Rand’s latitude and precision can accomplish in works of non-fiction. A review of it can be read here.

Short stories are not something I usually read, although have always held an interest in. Having ruminated upon that, the work of Bradbury, which I had held in high esteem for some time, seemed like a great place to dive in. I am only a handful of stories in, but the book is vintage Bradbury in bite-sized chunks. It’s definitely a book that I will take my time reading given its colossal size.

Along the same lines as the Bradbury book, this book is also features short stories. The topics of this book are considerably different – being sci-fi, paranormal, and fantasy – but still hold great interest to me.

This book is about maximizing efficiency. Wanting to get more done on a daily basis, centering upon Maximum Achievement was a straight forward choice. The book was excellent for my tastes; here is a review of it.

Following the notion of maximizing efficiency, this book followed the same previous thread. That said, taking a look at the title, it’s easy to be skeptical considering many books make claims but do not deliver. Thankfully, this book was worth the effort. With that in mind, there are various editions of this book, and after doing some research, for my purposes the first edition of the book seemed best given it covers the nuts and bolts process. Later editions change a bit, while also adding a lot of seemingly unnecessary information. That’s merely what I learned from reading reviews.

What I can say for sure is that the first edition offered much purchase. Some of it common sense, but quite easy overlook as well. Since adding more efficiency to my daily routine is paramount, this book was another no-brainer.

The work of James Allen was unknown to me up until a few weeks ago. Synchronicity being what it is, ‘out of nowhere’ the book popped up in my radar and quickly seemed like something that I was meant to read, as uncanny as it sounds. Fortuitously, Allen’s words are not only brilliant, but they are insightful, and even poetic in a way. I have never read a writer like him.

The book focuses on mindset and the thoughts one harbors. Although overlooked by some, a lot of evidence is beginning to show that whatever intention and thoughts people hold in their mind does have a conscious effect on our environment. Books like The Biology Of Belief by Bruce Lipton Ph.D., Lynne McTaggart’s The Intention Experiment, The Field, as well as many other books cover components of this idea.

In any case, Allen merely espouses being a master of the self and of your thoughts.

A dash of his work follows:

“Every thought-seed sown or allowed to fall into the mind, and to take root there, produces its own, blossoming sooner or later in act, and bearing its own fruitage of opportunity and circumstance. Good thoughts bear good fruit, bad thoughts bear bad fruits.”[1 ]

Most people including myself have seen this play out on a daily basis once my attention was focused precisely on it.

Beyond that, though, the work of the author was so sensible and mindful that I sought out more of his work. However, before purchasing one of his other books, I luckily stumbled upon a book called Mind Is Master. This book happens to be a collection of all of the works of the author and sure saves a lot of money if one was planning to buy all of his books. That will be featured in next month’s book haul.

Being an avid fan of Sci-Fi and Star Wars, I bought this book wanting to examine where the franchise is going considering the considerable increase in Star Wars books over these last few years. I have attempted starting it twice, and the second time got slowly into it, only to get bogged down early on. This book just isn’t as engaging as the other ones. I will read it, but after a few samplings I’m not holding my breath. I hope I am wrong though!

The Art Of Description popped up within one of my streams on social media, and having liked the blurb, I got one at AbeBooks. It is short but engaging book, and having now read it I really enjoy and appreciated the author’s unique method of examining a wide array of descriptive examples. A review for this book will soon follow.

A few trusted friends suggested this book. Given my penchant for wanting to know more about history, and fascism in particular (given its considerable increase over the years) this book seemed to be a great place to go to task. Witnessing the evolving political climate over the last decade, the information in this book is becoming even more important for the future, which was also one of the leading reasons for wanting to research this further.

Fat For Fuel is a veritable treasure trove of information about health that’s written in a cogent and accessible manner, that also outlines the many benefits of healthy fats. Its in-depth approach helps individuals come to terms with many of the myths that have been expounded by mainstream press and Big Pharma. The book also offers some solutions for those with significant health problems such as cancer. It really is a great book, and anyone with any type of disease should contemplate on reading it. A review of this book can be seen here.

This book is a dire warning of what the future holds. The author examines many of the causes that have increasingly brought about less capable younger generations than their forefathers. Not only is there a decline in education, but self-sufficiency is nigh non-existent; the newer generation just isn’t as robust as prior ones. That’s only the beginning, though. There are many other disturbing considerations. Thankfully, the author also ruminates upon some solutions as well. A review of this book can be seen here.

As a strong proponent of individuality, Ayn Rand stands unlike none other. Rand was rather outspoken in her views of the Individual against the Collective that pushes conformity. This book examines those circumstances and analyzes them from various viewpoints. Only about a quarter of the way through the book, but it’s been vintage Rand as one would expect.

In this particular piece Rand delves into what she believes are the key tenets of art and its role in life. Having never read nor found anything of substance regarding this topic in Academia, I am hoping this book leaves much for rumination. Haven’t had time to delve into it though.

This book has four parts, and only one held great interested me, which was Orwell’s insight into Politics and the English Language. The others were useful, just not as intriguing. The language part alone was worth the price, which wasn’t much. Although the section wasn’t long, it was still great on substance, like one would expect from the father of DoubleThink.

Throughout his life, George Carlin was known for his no-nonsense straight forward approach to various subjects. This is one of the main reasons why I wanted to learn more about him, especially given that this approach in life is rarely seen, although it’s much needed. A review of the book will be posted sometime in the future after having read the book.

Like last month, a handful of books were found at garage sales, which cost next to nothing. This month also featured some rather fortuitous finds as I was able to find George R.R. Martin’s A Dance With Dragons and James Patterson’s Beach Road for mere pocket change. There was another book, but that was commandeered by a friend. What’s up with some people? Sheesh.

All things considered, though the month had its fair share of obstacles, I was still able to have enough time to read quite a bit. I am certainly looking forward to finishing these books.

In any case, how was the month for the rest of you? Found anything intriguing and portentous lately? Feel free to share any recommendations or insights below. Be well!

___________________________________________________________

[1] James Allen, As A Man Thinketh, p 14.
___________________________________________________________

If you find value in this information, please share it. This article is free and open source. All individuals have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Zy Marquiez and TheBreakaway.wordpress.com.
___________________________________________________________About The Author:

His other blog, BreakawayConsciousnessBlog.wordpress.com features mainly his personal work, while TheBreakaway.wordpress.com serves as a media portal which mirrors vital information nigh always ignored by mainstream press, but still highly crucial to our individual understanding of various facets of the world.

The Federal Reserve in the United States just released a new report showing that “Total Household Wealth” in the United States has reached a record $94.8 trillion.

That’s an impressive figure.

Even more impressive is that Total Household Wealth has increased by $40 trillion since the lows of the Great Recession in 2009.

No doubt there’s probably a multitude of central bankers and bureaucrats toasting their success in having engineered such magnificent prosperity.

And it’s certainly an achievement worth celebrating. As long as you don’t look too closely at the data.

Total Household Wealth is exactly what it sounds like– the total net worth of every person in the United States, from Bill Gates down to the youngest newborn baby.

So when you add up all the 330+ million folks in the Land of the Free and tally up their combined net worth, the total is $94 trillion.

The thing is that the VAST majority of that wealth, especially the incredible growth over the last 8 years, has been from increases in just two asset classes: real estate and the stock market.

In fact, stocks and real estate alone account for roughly 2/3 of the wealth increase since 2009.

I’ll come back to that in a moment.

Now, simultaneously, we see plenty of other interesting data, also published by the Federal Reserve and US federal government.

Both the Fed and Census Bureau, for example, tell us that over 80% of businesses in the US are “nonemployer” companies, i.e. businesses which only employ one person (the owner), and often provide his/her primary source of income.

Yet according to the Federal Reserve, only 35% of these small businesses are profitable. Most are operating at a loss.

In other words, only 35% of the companies which make up 80% of American businesses are profitable.

You’re probably already doing the arithmetic– this means that a whopping 72% of all US businesses are NOT profitable.

That hardly sounds like record wealth to me.

Shifting gears, there’s the little factoid that an astounding 40% of young Americans are living with their parents– the highest percentage in the last 75 years.

And who can blame them considering student debt in the Land of the Free also hit a record $1.4 trillion three months ago, more than double the amount since the Great Recession.

Speaking of record debt, US credit card debt passed a record $1 trillion, and total US consumer credit hit a record $3.8 trillion last month.

Again, all of this hardly seems like ‘wealth’ to me.

Then there’s the issue of wages, which have remained essentially flat since the 2009 Great Recession if you adjust for inflation.

According to the US Department of Labor, inflation-adjusted wages, aka “real hourly compensation” in the US fell an annualized 0.9% last quarter, and fell a dismal 5.6% in the previous quarter.

Adjusted for inflation, the average American isn’t making any more money.

Once again, this is a pitiful excuse for ‘wealth.’

American businesses aren’t more productive either.

The same Labor Department report shows that productivity in the Land of the Free was flat in the first quarter of this year.

And productivity actually declined in 2016– something that hasn’t happened in at least the last 50 years.

Not to mention total economic growth in the Land of the Free has been pretty pitiful, logging a pathetic 1.6% last year.

And GDP growth in the first quarter of 2017 was just 1.2% on an annualized basis.

The US economy has exceed hasn’t surpassed 3% growth in more than 10-years, and it’s only happen two times so far in this millennium.

Seriously? This is “wealth”?

Look, I get it. Houses are ‘worth’ more than they used to be, and the stock market is much higher.

But these effects are heavily influenced by the trillions of dollars that was conjured out of thin air by the Federal Reserve.

ExxonMobil may be the most telling example.

In early September 2008, just prior to the financial crisis, Exxon had recently reported revenues of $72 billion, with $11.1 billion in net operating cashflow.

For the first quarter of 2017 the company reported revenues of $61 billion and net operating cashflow of $8 billion.

Plus, ExxonMobil managed to add nearly $20 billion in debt to its balance sheet over that same period.

So over 8-years, Exxon is making less money and has more debt. Yet its stock price is actually HIGHER.

More broadly, 66% of the largest companies in the US that have given estimates of their earnings for next quarter have issued “negative guidance”.

Companies expect to make less money. But stocks are near all-time highs.

Does this make any sense? Is that also wealth?

No.

This is nothing more than the result of paper money that has been created by central bankers, allocated to a tiny financial elite, and dumped into the stock market.

It’s the same with real estate. Sure, prices are higher. But it’s not because of fundamentals.

In terms of population, there’s only been a 7% increase in the number of households in the United States since 2009.

There’s been a commensurate increase in the supply of homes as well.

So in terms of supply/demand fundamentals, the average price nationwide shouldn’t be that much higher.

But take a look at this chart, courtesy of the Federal Reserve.

The red line shows interest rates, which have been generally falling since 1990. The blue line shows home prices, which have been rising like crazy since 2012.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to spot the correlation: record low interest rates mean higher home prices.

This isn’t wealth.

It’s just phony paper.

And as the Great Recession showed in late 2008, phony paper wealth can go ‘poof’ in an instant.

With that in mind, it may be time to consider taking some of that paper wealth off the table and setting it aside for a rainy day.

About the Author

Simon Black is an international investor, entrepreneur, and founder of Sovereign Man. His is about using the experiences from his life and travels to help you achieve more freedom, make more money, keep more of it, and protect it all from bankrupt governments.

“We know where you are. We know where you’ve been. We can more or less know what you’re thinking about.”
– Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt

“You had to live—did live, from habit that became instinct—in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.”—George Orwell, 1984

Over the last decade, American has been sinking deeper and deeper into a totalitarian landscape. Battlefield America by John W. Whitehead not only catalogues many of the tyrannical events that should have never taken place against the populace in America, but soberingly warns about the further incoming tyranny that’s slowly seeping in America and will certainly continue if the people don’t wake up to these.

The overall pattern of tyranny in America has been covered by much of the alternative media, but rarely the mainstream media. That’s why a book like this is so important, because it brings clarity to such a sobering and disconcerting topic.

That said, what does the “Police State” encompass? For starters, it involves hyper-criminalization of many events. How do we know this is taking place? For incisiveness and accuracy, let’s cite the author in his own words:

“…it is estimated that the average American actually commits three felonies a day without knowing it. In fact, according to law professor John Baker, “There is no onein the United States over the age of 18 who cannot be indicted for some federal crime.That is not an exaggeration.”[1][Bold emphasis added.]

Such is the foundation of a tyrannical police state.

Citing dozens and dozens of examples, the author catalogues a Marine having been detained for criticizing the government on facebook, a reporter persecuted for not revealing his sources, many instances of SWAT teams bursting into homes unannounced to investigate minor crimes [or sometimes none at all!], and more. Examples of police brutality are also covered, as well as invasive searches with no warrant where they have stripped searched people, drawn blood, probed people intimately, charged people for feeding crows, charged individuals for living off grid, charged others for watering a neighbor’s yard, or for installing solar panels, or raising chickens in the back yard, and even carrying out the heinous crime! of growing vegetables. It is no coincidence that much of what the government has criminalized are things that allow self sufficiency to individuals. Self-sufficient individuals take care of themselves and rarely if ever need the government. The less and less people need government, the more the Government power seeps away. It’s a simple formula. As such, forcing people to tyrannically have to be dependent on the corrupt system is part of the plan. It’s crystal clear.

“You are 17,600 times more likely to die from heart diseases than from a terrorist attack. You are 11,000 times more likely to die from an airplane accident than from a terrorist plot involving an airplane. You are 1,048 times more likely to die from a car accident than a terrorist attack. You are 404 times more likely to die in a fall than from a terrorist attack. You are 12 times more likely to die from accidental suffocating in bed than from a terrorist attack. You are 9 more times likely to choke to dean in your own vomit that n die from a terrorist attack. You are 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist.”[3]

Even actual police officers are more likely to harm individuals than terrorists – that’s an incredibly frightening prospect, and one that is oft-overlooked in the age of distraction and sound-bites.

In conjunction with that, the desensitization of the police state is also covered by the author. As the author notes, TV shows, movies and video games, accustom the mind to seeing a police state as normal, while schools now criminalize child behavior, all of which is leading to the next generation seeing as normal something that the founding fathers clearly warned about. To the next generation growing up in a police state will be normal because that is all they have ever known. That will make this disturbing trend even harder to reverse.

Battlefield America also delves into the ominous growth of Big Brother and it’s endless surveillance machinations. From the ubiquitous presence in spying by the NSA, as well as the disturbing connection between Google and the government in facilitating spying on citizens, the author sifts through a wide range of modalities that are employed against the populace.

Also exposed is coming age of drones (that will also aid in spying, by the way), which has already begun, and also the ceaseless growth of DHS. The enormous scope of the Big Brother & Police State expansion covered by the author branches far and wide showing, and it shows many of the components that undergird such this growing totalitarian system.

The author even goes on to juxtapose the current pattern of tyranny with similar patterns in history, while also drawing parallels from fiction such as 1984 and Brave New World.

Comprehensive in its aim, and disturbing implications, this is a book that should be read by everyone. The Police State affects all of us, and it’s only going to get worse given the complacency and ignorance that a sizeable portion of the population retains. Whatever future manifests, it will come about through the action, and inactions of individuals from all over. If you value freedom, you should ponder about this issue, because not only does the system already show everyone as a criminal (remember the first quote), but worse, history has shown, time and time again that those that value freedom, and yet don’t act to keep their freedoms end up in a life of servitude.

___________________________________________________________
If you find value in this information, please share it. This article is free and open source. All individuals have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Zy Marquiez and TheBreakaway.wordpress.com.
___________________________________________________________About The Author:

His other blog, BreakawayConsciousnessBlog.wordpress.com features mainly his personal work, while TheBreakaway.wordpress.com serves as a media portal which mirrors vital information nigh always ignored by mainstream press, but still highly crucial to our individual understanding of various facets of the world.

“We’re talking about design features and how you put things together in an organization, a business. Does the business look like a rocket or a blob of a government agency?” (Expanded Games, Jon Rappoport)

This piece is based on years of working as a consultant with private clients, and also on the research that led to my three Matrix collections.

People tend to have pre-set ideas about organization.

Some of these ideas stem from understanding what a business needs to do, in order to survive. They’re useful ideas.

But other ideas are “inherited”; they’re automatic; they’re put into action without conscious thought.

The first big principle SHOULD be: organization is an EFFECT of what the entrepreneur is trying to accomplish. Organization isn’t a CAUSE.

There are companies that—if they were airplanes—would find themselves housed in supermarket parking lots. The companies are that weird. They’re organized in ways that really have nothing to do with their aims.

“Well, we must have Department X and Department Y, of course. We’ll figure out later how they contribute to success.”

But later never comes. Those departments turn into significant roadblocks and obstacles.

Often, the entrepreneur doesn’t see himself as a creative organizer.

He doesn’t ask himself this question: “Given what I’m trying to do here, what’s the best way to configure my enterprise so all the energy is moving forward?”

If he did consider that question seriously, he would deploy his imagination and come up with very interesting and vital answers.

The shapes of organizations aren’t written in stone. Except when dull minds put them together.

The entrepreneur is always ready to shift strategies when they aren’t working. He should also be ready to reconfigure his organization when it isn’t working.

Buckle up—here’s a little story most people wouldn’t understand or believe: I once had a client who was ready to start a new business, but he was mired in trying to organize it. I gave him a daily writing exercise: describe all the most absurd and ridiculous ways you could put your business together.

After a few weeks, he suddenly and spontaneously came up with a few highly original and workable ideas—these ideas came out of his imagination, which was stimulated by inventing The Bizarre. “Things that made no sense” led to breakthroughs.

This is an approach people overlook because they are too timid in how they use their imaginations…they try to imagine “standard solutions.” This is a contradiction in terms. Imagination operates by going out on a limb. Then good new ideas arise spontaneously. Most people don’t grasp that. They ignore a whole dimension of their innate power.

In the area of organization, people do this every day. And, as a result, they eventually find themselves dealing with all sorts of problems, and they don’t realize where those problems are coming from.

If terrorist incidents are always tied back to shadowy groups linked to Al Qaeda or ISIS, an online, independent media might connect those dots to show how Al Qaeda and ISIS were literally created, fostered, funded, trained and equipped by the UK government, the US government and their allies across the world as a tool in their quest of dominance of the Middle East and control of their domestic population. But such a story can only be told on a free and open internet, where independent voices continue to reach the masses and inform them of the truth about these terror groups.

“Don’t give me more information. My mind is full. I can’t accept more messages. I have to tune out.”

This is about a psychological operation that, lately, has risen to new heights—the over-crowding of the mind.

I’m talking about the efforts of mainstream news to invent a new “scandal” every day, based on the smallest detail. Trump misspelled a word in a tweet. It could be a secret code. Somebody on Trump’s team talked on the phone with a Russian: treason.

There are twitter battles about which political side has the upper hand in the war between the Left and “Alt.-right.”

This effect is being taken to new levels, and as a result, IQ is dropping. Logical capacity is being swamped. The natural desire to get smarter and sharper is diminishing.

The very capacity to put events in a deeper overall perspective—which is exactly what people need—is placed on hold, is jammed up.

In my 35 years as a reporter, I’ve been through this many times. I research an area, and the data are a mess. They’re jumbled and out of order, and filled with lies and half-truths. I’ve learned what it takes to get to the bottom of things, and I can tell you—IT’S WORTH IT.

This is why I keep writing about logic and the need for it. This is why I keep giving readers the news behind the news. This is why I write about how complex systems can become a massive distraction when they exceed common sense and trap the mind.

Reducing the rationality of the individual is the path to futility and surrender. We have to go the other way. The individual’s ability to analyze information in the age of disinformation is primary, vital, and liberating. It always was; and this is a time where it is being tested.

There is the temptation to oversimplify writing and analysis—don’t write a thousand words, shave it down to two hundred, do it all in a tweet. But that’s nonsense. It doesn’t work. Not if empowering people with truth is the goal. And that is the goal.

A person should be proud of his capacity to follow a line of thought and reasoning. He should increase that capacity. He should want to be smarter, always.

No matter what is happening around him.

That effort pays off in clarity. Inessential information falls by the wayside. The space of the mind opens up. Individual power trends upward. This is a good thing.

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

In his initial foray, Crossfire – The Plot That Killed Kennedy, Marrs cemented himself as a top-tier caliber researcher not afraid to question the official narrative, and rightly so. From there, in Rule By Secrecy, Marrs followed suit connecting the dots between the secret societies known as Freemasons, The Trilateral Commission with the mysterious Great Pyramids, and even more. Marrs’ insatiable thirst for mystery showed us with The Rise Of The Fourth Reich that there were not only malignant fascist elements embedded deep within America, but they remain unchecked, as the blatant rise of fascism is taking hold will show. Population Control showed us that the comptrollers have a completely different plan that doesn’t involve most of the global populace.

Now, in The Illuminati, Marrs continues his high level of research exposing what is arguably the most well known secret society of them all: The Illuminati.

The book delves into (1) the Origins of the order in a rather extensive overview. It also covers how (2) Germany, (3) Zionism, (4) Freemasons, all connect. From there, how the (5) Church connects into this is given a cursory glance. The (6) Methodology employed by the Illuminati is covered in reasonable fashion, while the (7) Suppression of the order is also examined. What role the Illuminati played in the (8) Revolutions of France, America and Russia is reviewed, while the (9) Modern Illuminati and its influences in (10) Pop Culture as gone through as well.

Overall, the evolution of the order is catalogued quite well by Marrs, as well as many of the implications therein. Many avenues of information are examined, some more than others, but a vast array of information is brought to bear for incisive individuals to follow upon.

Given that humanity is at a crossroads between a tsunami of fake news and a vortex of deception with many hidden agendas behind the scenes, one of the main values of this book will be in individuals coming to realize that there is in fact veracity to some of what they hear about the Illuminati.

The Illuminati will be an indispensable resource for understanding our current world and how many of the systemic issues have come about. Anyone who has ever contemplated how this has historically taken place needs to read this book. All who have read an of Marrs’ work know what to expect. For those that haven’t, this is an excellent starting point. But realize the trails that the author has shed light upon are merely starting point.

___________________________________________________________
If you find value in this information, please share it. This article is free and open source. All individuals have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Zy Marquiez and TheBreakaway.wordpress.com.
___________________________________________________________About The Author:

His other blog, BreakawayConsciousnessBlog.wordpress.com features mainly his personal work, while TheBreakaway.wordpress.com serves as a media portal which mirrors vital information nigh always ignored by mainstream press, but still highly crucial to our individual understanding of various facets of the world.

In this phenomenal interview researcher Richard Groves, from TragedyAndHope.com interviews award winning teacher John Taylor Gatto on the surreptitious history of public schooling in America.

Here are some of Gatto’s scathing remarks on about what modern schooling is all about and the truth behind it:

“…schools and schooling are increasingly irrelevant to the great enterprises of the planet. No one believes anymore that scientists are trained in science classes or politicians in civics classes or poets in English classes. The truth is that schools don’t really teach anything except how to obey orders.”[1][Bold Emphasis Added]

“Schools are intended to produce, through the application of formulas, formulaic human beings whose behavior can be predicted and controlled.”[2][Bold Emphasis Added]

“It is absurd and anti-life to be part of the system that compels you to sit in confinement with people of exactly the same age and social class. That system effectively cuts you off from the immense diversity of life and the synergy of variety; indeed it cuts you off from your own past and future, sealing you in a continuous present much the same way television does.”[3][Bold Emphasis Added]

“Mass education cannot work to produce a fair society because its daily practice is practice in rigged competition, suppression and intimidation. The schools we’ve allowed to develop can’t work to teach nonmaterial values, the values which give meaning to everyone’s life, rich or poor, because the structure of schooling is held together by a Byzantine tapestry of reward and threat, of carrots and sticks. Official favor, grades, and other trinkets of subordination have no connection with education; they are the paraphernalia of servitude, not of freedom.”[4][Bold Emphasis Added]

“Aristotle saw, a long time ago, that fully participating in a complex range of human affairs was the only way to become fully human…”[5][Bold Emphasis Added]

“You need to recognize that the forces at work today to standardize and centralize education and all other aspects of your life are exactly the same ones we fought a Revolution against more than two hundred years ago. The same dreary people, the ones who think we are permanent children, or just machinery to be adjusted, are still in charge.”[6]

Orwell’s landmark piece, 1984, has resonated with millions of readers, and with good reason: it speaks to the pervasive encroaching totalitarianism that seeks to strangle the individual that has historically taken place throughout history.

In the same light, what follows are some of Orwell’s wise words collated to incite some rumination between incisive and inquiring individuals.

“If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

“The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns, as it were, to instinctively using to long words and exhausted idioms, like cuttlefish squirting out link.”

“…to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy…” [This statement influenced readers to see that lying government leaders were pretending to a moral sense they did not possess.][Subsequent commentary Jon Rappoport of NoMoreFakeNews.com]

“But actually, he thought as he re-adjusted the Ministry of Plenty’s figures, it was not even forgery. It was merely the substitution of one piece of nonsense for another. Most of the material that you were dealing with had no connexion with anything in the real world, not even the kind of connexion that is contained in a direct lie. Statistics were just as much a fantasy in their original version as in their rectified version.” [Generations of readers realized that the government was simply inventing itself as it wanted the public to see it. Government was a hoax. And if government was a hoax, and you wanted to reveal that, you would have to find a way into secret communications. Thus, Orwell spawned untold numbers of independent spies who began looking into the private communications of political power players.] [Subsequent commentary Jon Rappoport]

“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?” Jon Rappoport
[This statement alerted readers that news networks were omitting a whole range of ideas about the true actions of government—and therefore, again, independent citizens would have to dig into the personal communications of leaders, in order to discover what they were actually thinking and talking about.] [Subsequent commentary Jon Rappoport]

“…perhaps the Party was rotten under the surface…” [Readers, generations of readers took to that phrase. If the Party was rotten, then you had to go under the surface to find that out. You had to scrape into the private corruption behind the public face.] [Subsequent commentary Jon Rappoport]

“The two aims of the Party are to conquer the whole surface of the earth and to extinguish once and for all the possibility of independent thought… All rulers in all ages have tried to impose a false view of the world upon their followers.” [The effect of this inflammatory statement is obvious. Rebels, generations of rebels have probed the inner workings of the government, in order to expose what the government is actually doing, in order to prevent a complete takeover.] [Subsequent commentary Jon Rappoport]

“Heavy physical work, the care of home and children, petty quarrels with neighbors, films, football, beer, and above all, gambling filled up the horizon of their minds. To keep them in control was not difficult…. All that was required of them was a primitive patriotism which could be appealed to whenever it was necessary to make them accept longer working hours or shorter rations. And when they become discontented, as they sometimes did, their discontentment led nowhere, because being without general ideas, they could only focus it on petty specific grievances.”
– George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four

“Perhaps one did not want to be loved so much as to be understood.”

“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”

“In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

“War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.”

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

“Every generation imagines itself to be more intelligent than the one that went before it, and wiser than the one that comes after it.”

“The best books… are those that tell you what you know already.”

“It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen.”

“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

“The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.”

“If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself.”

“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever.”

“Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. ”

“We shall meet in the place where there is no darkness.”

“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”

“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”

“Writing a book is a horrible, exhausting struggle, like a long bout with some painful illness. One would never undertake such a thing if one were not driven on by some demon whom one can neither resist nor understand.”

“The essence of being human is that one does not seek perfection.”

“Perhaps a lunatic was simply a minority of one.”

“Until they became conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious.”

“If you loved someone, you loved him, and when you had nothing else to give, you still gave him love.”

“Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.”

“In the face of pain there are no heroes.”

“Big Brother is Watching You.”

“Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.”

“It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.”

“Being in a minority, even in a minority of one, did not make you mad. There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad.”

“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”

“The choice for mankind lies between freedom and happiness and for the great bulk of mankind, happiness is better.”

“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”

“On the whole human beings want to be good, but not too good, and not quite all the time.”

“I enjoy talking to you. Your mind appeals to me. It resembles my own mind except that you happen to be insane.”

“Orthodoxy means not thinking–not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.”

“Man is the only creature that consumes without producing. He does not give milk, he does not lay eggs, he is too weak to pull the plough, he cannot run fast enough to catch rabbits. Yet he is lord of all the animals. He sets them to work, he gives back to them the bare minimum that will prevent them from starving, and the rest he keeps for himself.”

“Four legs good, two legs bad.”

“It could not have been ten seconds, and yet it seemed a long time that their hands were clasped together. He had time to learn every detail on her hand.”

“For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable – what then?”

“Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.”

“We do not merely destroy our enemies; we change them.”

“A scrupulous writer, in every sentence that he writes, will ask himself at least four questions, thus: 1. What am I trying to say? 2. What words will express it? 3. What image or idiom will make it clearer? 4. Is this image fresh enough to have an effect?”

“Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else.”

“You are a slow learner, Winston.”
“How can I help it? How can I help but see what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.”

“Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.”

“Men can only be happy when they do not assume that the object of life is happiness.”

“Confession is not betrayal. What you say or do doesn’t matter; only feelings matter. If they could make me stop loving you-that would be the real betrayal.”

“Sanity is not statistical.”

“Nothing was your own except the few cubic centimetres inside your skull. ”

“The only good human being is a dead one.”

“All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.”

“The object of terrorism is terrorism. The object of oppression is oppression. The object of torture is torture. The object of murder is murder. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?”

“Of pain you could wish only one thing: that it should stop. Nothing in the world was so bad as physical pain. In the face of pain there are no heroes.”

“At 50, everyone has the face he deserves.”

“To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.”

“To die hating them, that was freedom.”

“No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?”

“He wears a mask, and his face grows to fit it.”

“One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.”

“There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad.”

“Your worst enemy, he reflected, was your nervous system. At any moment the tension inside you was liable to translate itself into some visible symptom.”

“There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.”

“Winston Smith: Does Big Brother exist?
O’Brien: Of course he exists.
Winston Smith: Does he exist like you or me?
O’Brien: You do not exist.”

“Several of them would have protested if they could have found the right arguments.”

“We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it.”

“Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.”

“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.”

“This work was strictly voluntary, but any animal who absented himself from it would have his rations reduced by half.”

“What can you do, thought Winston, against the lunatic who is more intelligent than yourself, who gives your arguments a fair hearing and then simply persists in his lunacy?”

“We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right.”

“If people cannot write well, they cannot think well, and if they cannot think well, others will do their thinking for them.”

“If you kept the small rules, you could break the big ones.”

“So long as they (the Proles) continued to work and breed, their other activities were without importance. Left to themselves, like cattle turned loose upon the plains of Argentina, they had reverted to a style of life that appeared to be natural to them, a sort of ancestral pattern…Heavy physical work, the care of home and children, petty quarrels with neighbors, films, football, beer and above all, gambling filled up the horizon of their minds. To keep them in control was not difficult.”

“Under the spreading chestnut tree I sold you and you sold me:
There lie they, and here lie we
Under the spreading chestnut tree.”

“If you can feel that staying human is worth while, even when it can’t have any result whatever, you’ve beaten them.”

“Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, ‘he that is not with me is against me’.”

“Let’s face it: our lives are miserable, laborious, and short.”

“In philosophy, or religion, or ethics, or politics, two and two might make five, but when one was designing a gun or an aeroplane they had to make four.”

“We are the dead. Our only true life is in the future.”

“All writers are vain, selfish and lazy, and at the very bottom of their motives lies a mystery. Writing a book is a long, exhausting struggle, like a long bout of some painful illness. One would never undertake such a thing if one were not driven by some demon whom one can neither resist nor understand.”

“It is a feeling of relief, almost of pleasure, at knowing yourself at last genuinely down and out. You have talked so often of going to the dogs – and well, here are the dogs, and you have reached them, and you can stand it. It takes off a lot of anxiety.”

“If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable – what then?”

“The masses never revolt of their own accord, and they never revolt merely because they are oppressed. Indeed, so long as they are not permitted to have standards of comparison, they never even become aware that they are oppressed.”

“You’re only a rebel from the waist downwards,’ he told her.”

“The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation. These contradictions are not accidental , nor do they result from from ordinary hypocrisy: they are deliberate exercises in doublethink”

“The consequences of every act are included in the act itself.”

“Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

“Man is the only creature that consumes without producing”

“Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.”

“April the 4th, 1984. To the past, or to the future. To an age when thought is free. From the Age of Big Brother, from the Age of the Thought Police, from a dead man – greetings!”

“Man serves the interests of no creature except himself.”

___________________________________________________________
This article is free and open source. All individuals are encouraged to share this content and have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Zy Marquiez and TheBreakaway.wordpress.com.
___________________________________________________________About The Author:

His other blog, BreakawayConsciousnessBlog.wordpress.com features mainly his personal work, while TheBreakaway.wordpress.com serves as a media portal which mirrors vital information nigh always ignored by mainstream press, but still highly crucial to our individual understanding of various facets of the world.

Having recently done some research on health after some unforeseen circumstances, and after finding some noteworthy quotes in some books about optimal health, I thought it prudent to share the quotes I have collated overtime.

Most quotes are directly related to health, while others could be applied indirectly.

“Natural Forces within us are the true healers of disease.”
– Hippocrates

“Doctors give drugs of which they know little, into bodies, of which they know less, for diseases of which they know nothing at all.”
– Voltaire

“He who takes medicine and neglects diet wastes the skill of the physician.”
– Chinese Proverb

“One-quarter of what you eat keeps you alive. The other three-quarters keeps your doctor alive.”
– Hieroglyph In Egyptian Tomb

“Health is not valued till sickness comes.”
– Thomas Fuller

“Leave your drugs in a chemist’s pot if you can heal the patient with food.”
– Hippocrates

“Early to bed and early to rise makes a man healthy wealthy and wise.”
– Benjamin Franklin

“He who has health, has hope; and he who has hope, has everything.”
– Thomas Carlyle

“To enjoy good health, to bring true happiness to one’s family, to bring peace to all, one must first discipline and control one’s own mind. If a man can control his mind he can find the way to Enlightenment and all wisdom and virtue will naturally come to him.”
– Buddha

“The food you eat can either be the safest and most powerful form of medicine or the slowest form of poison.”
– Ann Wigmore

“Calm mind brings inner strength and self-confidence, so that’s very important for good health.”
– Dalai Lama

“Any food that requires enhancing by the use of chemical substances should in no way be considered a food.”
– John H. Tobe

“It is increasingly observed that the majority of pharmaceutical drugs, even those believed to have minimal adverse effects, such as proton-pump inhibitors and anti-hypertensives, in fact adversely affect immune development and functions and are most likely are deleterious to micribiota.”
– Stig Bengmark, MD, PhD, “Gut Micribiota, Immune Development and Function,” Pharmacological Research 69 (March 2013): 87-113

“The doctor of the future will no longer treat the human frame with drugs, but rather will cure and prevent disease with nutrition.”
– Thomas Edison

“Learning is the beginning of wealth. Learning is the beginning of health. Learning is the beginning of spirituality. Searching and learning is where the miracle process all begins.”
– Jim Rohn

“You can’t poison a body into wellness.”
– Catherine J. Frompovich

“Modern medicine is a negation of health. It isn’t organized to serve human health, but only itself, an institution. It makes more people sick than it heals.”
– Ivan Illic

“A good laugh and a long sleep are the best cures in the doctor’s book.”
– Irish Proverb

“Don’t eat anything your great-great-grandmother wouldn’t recognize as food. There are a great many foodlike items in the supermarket your ancestors wouldn’t recognize as food…stay away from these.”
– Michael Pollan, “Unhappy Meals,” New York Times, Jan 28, 2007

“Pharmaceutical treatment has, thus far, failed to inhibit the tsunami of endemic diseases spreading around the world, and no new tools are in sight. Dramatic alterations, in direction of a paleolithic-like lifestyle and food habits, seem to be the only alternative with the potential to control the present escalating crisis.”
– Stig Bengmark, MD, PhD, “Gut Microbiota, Immune Development and Function,” Pharmacological Research 69 (March 2013): 87-113

“I will not follow where the path may lead; instead I will go where there is no path and leave a trail.”
– Muriel Strode

“Probably as much as 75% of the medicine of sickness is unnecessary and its cost can be avoided.”
– Dr. Ghislaine Lanctot, Author Of The Medical Mafia

“In fact, I am certain, there has never been a doctor anywhere, at any time, in any country, at any period in history who ever healed anything. Each person’s healer is within.”
– Marlo Morgan, Mutant Messages Down Under

” One of the first duties of the physician is to educate the masses not to take medicine.”– William Osler, M.D.

“The greatest weapon against stress is our ability to choose one thought over another.
– William James

“It is health that is real wealth and not pieces of gold and silver.”
– Gandhi

“Laughter is the best medicine.”
-Proverb

“To keep the body in good health is a duty…otherwise we shall not be able to keep our mind strong and clear.”
– Buddha

“It is not an exaggeration to say that gut health is everything. The health of your gut has a profound effect on your overall health.”
– Sarah Ballantyne, Ph.D., The Paleo Approach

“Improving the quality, duration, and timing of your sleep is one of the single most powerful interventions you can make to improve your health.”
– Chris Kresser, Your Personal Paleo Code

“Lack of activity destroys the good condition of every human being, while movement and methodical physical exercise save it and preserve it.”
– Plato

“Early to bed and early to rise makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise.”
– Benjamin Franklin

“Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning.”
– Albert Einstein

“Leave all the afternoon for exercise and recreation, which are as necessary as reading. I will rather say more necessary because health is worth more than learning.”
– Thomas Jefferson

“Sickness comes on horseback, but departs on foot.”
– Dutch Proverb

“Our greatest glory is not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall.”
– Confucius

“Without health life is not life; it is only a state of languor and suffering – an image of death.”
– Buddha

“It does not matter how slowly you go as long as you do not stop.”
– Confucius

“People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.”
– George Bernard Shaw

“The art of medicine consists of amusing the patient while nature cures the disease.”
-Voltaire

“We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.”
– Aristotle

“He who takes medicine and neglects diet wastes the skill of his doctors.”
– Chinese Proverb

___________________________________________________________
This article is free and open source. You are encouraged to share this content and have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Zy Marquiez and TheBreakaway.wordpress.com.
___________________________________________________________About The Author:

His other blog, BreakawayConsciousnessBlog.wordpress.com features mainly his personal work, while TheBreakaway.wordpress.com serves as a media portal which mirrors vital information nigh always ignored by mainstream press, but still highly crucial to our individual understanding of various facets of the world.

It matters not whether it is morning, afternoon, evening, midnight, or the tail-end of a 48-hour session, when the muse arrives, she must be served on the spot.

It just so happens than my Muse, my oh so dearly beloved, insists on knocking on the door at the most unexpected of times – when I need sleep! We have a long history of this, and I’ve gotten used to it, but still. I mean, really, who loves to lie in bed spellbounded by insomnia as The Muse casts her spell?

Those that know their muses, and know them rather well, know that when the modern descendents of daughters of Zeus arrive in all their profound, stylistic and amazing glory, you better get to work! Thou shalt not anger the Goddesses.

It just so happens that when my muse arrives, she means business. The woman knows her stuff, and knows it well. Some days she blows by the door barkinig orders of many types (some in languages I don’t even know or have ever heard of, but I don’t tell her that) while other days she’s a bit more laid back having been aptly served. Tonight, it was just my luck that the last idiot that talked to her said he was “Too tired“ to work at the moment. SERIOUSLY!? The poor soul undoubtedly now shares a chamber in Hell in the Idiot’s Inn next. Of course, given how quickly muses dispose of unworthy souls, my Muse still had a lot of anger to displace. Gee, lucky me.

I learned very early, and very quickly, that no matter what, you better be serious if you dare summon her or she will call upon her lovely long lost uncle, Hades himself, for wasting her time.

Given all that, when The Muse does show up, there’s always a lot of work to be had – all creative types know this. Some muses require the occasional sacrifice, you know, a sheet of paper, a candle, a few pencils. Mine, however, takes her job seriously and merely to walk through the door requires a metric ton of graphite, you know, for those things lovingly called pencils, a veritable forest for the endless stream paper to sacrifice to the Fire Gods, as well as crates of candles of all types – ALL TYPES! And all these things better be natural, she doesn’t do fake ANYTHING. This wicked wondrous woman even likes, especially, wait for it…ESSENTIAL OILS! SERIOUSLY!? [note: remind me to erase the word wicked from the final draft, as she caught me writing it…it’s just too early to get into a fight. Plus, my soul is worth a lot more than one word, you know.]

I’m just a regular guy – I can do pencils, paper, a computer, heck even some music – BUT FRIGGING ESSENTIAL OILS! Next thing you know she’s going to want her own symphony! (Thankfully Symphonies in MP4 format and such are much simpler to find than a veritable orchestra – I feel sorry for the Greeks!)

Don’t tell her I said that last part, or I will be cleaning the catacombs of hell from here henceforth with bones and blood (don’t look at me like that, It’s called HELL for a reason!). She loves her varying delights to be unknown and for others to figure it out for themselves, which is why she loves the self-sufficient creative types. Muses are private individuals you know, which is why we don’t see them often.

In any case, after sauntering through the door minutes ago, and waiting – with her hands on her hip, head tilted slightly and one eyebrow raised – for my sorry ass to get to work, she realized I was still groggy as all hell. SHE WASN’T HAVING IT! She dared cross her arms gave me the look, in my house! MY HOUSE! And don’t you dare ask me what the look is – YOU ALL KNOW WHAT THE LOOK IMPLIES! It’s the Muses’ version of the Death Stare that instantly levels worlds like wrecking balls level buildings.

That meant it was double-time for me! After promptly rolling my eyes – making suure she didn’t see that – I intimated Greaaaat! (You don’t mouth off to the Muse, or you’re in the slammer, sometimes for life! Such as been the unfortunate end of many the fool who messed with the Goddess’ power. Poor, ignorant souls who dared venture on such a wicked and death-ridden road. Such has been the journey of many one-hit wonders, as we have come to learn.)

Here goes, my first piece, in a night, a long long time, which will soon follow with sacrificial offerings of myriad types. If you think essential oils are weird, you DON’T EVEN KNOW what she requires of other individuals who mouth of to her! May the Gods have mercy on their souls skills.

I, uh, gotta go. The point of her heel just started tapping rhythmically by my side, as she stands slanted looking at me wondering why it’s taking me so long to compose this piece. Speaking of piece, PEACE!

___________________________________________________________
This article is free and open source. You are encouraged to share this content and have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Zy Marquiez and TheBreakaway.wordpress.com.
___________________________________________________________About The Author:

His other blog, BreakawayConsciousnessBlog.wordpress.com features mainly his personal work, while TheBreakaway.wordpress.com serves as a media portal which mirrors vital information nigh always ignored by mainstream press, but still highly crucial to our individual understanding of various facets of the world.

It has now become crystal clear that the You Tube ‘Adpocalypse’ is just phase one of a far more sinister plan to sabotage successful You Tube channels in order to kill competition, robber Barron style, so that the corporate, legacy and mainstream media can yield more power, control and eyeballs on You Tube. What’s being done to the SGT Report You Tube channel can be quantified by alarming statistics which prove, the fix is in. As John D. Rockefeller famously boasted, “Competition is a sin.” Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

The US press is aware that medically caused death is the third leading cause of death in America. But nothing happens in their elite corner of the “information age.”

For years, I’ve been pointing out that the medical apparatus is best-protected structure in the US and the world.

One piece of evidence for that statement: we haven’t had, symbolically speaking, a medical Edward Snowden. Indeed, if you go to WikiLeaks or some other source that routinely exposes leaks, you’ll be hard pressed to find anything substantial about the inner workings of what I call the medical cartel.

And when I say inner workings, I mean memos, emails, and other documents that irrevocably reveal:

* How medical studies are routinely twisted and cooked to achieve a predetermined outcome in contradiction to the facts;

* How virus-hunters casually claim to have discovered “the virus” that causes a disease, when they have not followed standard procedure, and are merely making insupportable and self-serving assumptions;

* How researchers ignore evidence that a “new disease” is indistinguishable from an old disease that has been on the scene for decades or even longer; there is money in new diseases;

* How medical drugs are having grave toxic effects on patients and delivering no visible results;

* How government health officials are conspiring with drug companies to bring medicines to market, despite the fact that there is every reason to assume the drugs are worthless and destructive;

* How public health agencies, researchers, and pharmaceutical companies cover up the widespread harm vaccines are causing;

* How fake epidemics are launched to convince the public that they must follow prescribed vaccination schedules.

These are just a few of the many issues we would expect an insider to expose in blowing the whistle. We would expect to see these issues (crimes) revealed in numerous and detailed and irrefutable paper trails.

What the CDC whistleblower, William Thompson, exposed in 2014 (see the film Vaxxed) mainly concerned one study that falsely exonerated one vaccine (the MMR) from a role in causing autism. That is just the tip of the iceberg.

Over the years, I’ve gone after the medical cartel from many angles. There is a surprising amount of open-source material. I have also interviewed medical “dissidents,” doctors who have left the fold and are ready to talk. And using straightforward logic, I’ve discovered deep flaws in spurious medical arguments, and those flaws have led to deeper flaws and lies.

I could easily do a week-long course for honest and independent medical reporters on what I’ve found and how I’ve found it. Connecting the dots often requires a prior knowledge of basic fallacies in the medical framework of “knowledge.”

I have never encountered a medical insider who had access to miles and miles of damning data and was prepared to release it to the world.

Understand: I’m NOT talking about practicing physicians who are willing to talk about medical lies. I’m talking about people who are buried deep in the heart of the pharmaceutical/government agency/research establishment, who are ready to step forward with documents that turn the establishment upside down, as a matter of duty to their various oaths.

This absence of deep insiders speaks to the wall that has been built around the medical cartel. We’re not just talking about insiders’ fear of going public. We’re talking about more. For example, the refusal of major media to cover deep revelations that threaten to torpedo the whole medical structure. A potential whistleblower pauses for thought in the face of that. He could risk everything, and then—silence from the press. No “Snowden coverage.” There would be unanimous press attacks on his person, accusations that the documents are forged or inconclusive, and he is mentally unbalanced. Accusations that he is preventing people from believing in a system that saves lives every day. And so on and so forth.

But that isn’t the end of it. The wall around the medical cartel is, in its origin, a Rockefeller wall. Modern medicine is a Rockefeller production, jump-started in the early 20th century with the famous Flexner Report. On the basis of the Report, medical systems devoted to discovering and treating disease were gradually transformed into a machine that routinely kills 225,000 Americans a year—and that is a conservative estimate.

Rockefeller influence is no small thing.

The march to include every human on the planet under the umbrella of modern diagnosis and treatment is relentless. It is part and parcel of an agenda to weaken, debilitate, confuse, control, and destroy populations. I do not make that statement lightly.

I have shown, in past investigations, that medical-cartel players are surely aware of the damaging effects of their drugs, and yet, for decades, they have stood by and done nothing. The profit motive is one thing; but this is, at the least, indifference to human suffering and death. You could call it reckless endangerment, negligent homicide, but these are euphemisms for assault with deadly weapons (the drugs) and murder.

You could say the reason medical insiders do not step forward and reveal key data is fear for their own lives; but this is true of whistleblowers in other professions who do step forward.

Suppose Edward Snowden, considering a plan to obtain and leak NSA data, felt strongly that the leaks would have no effect, that his revelations would be blacked out by the mainstream press, that no mainstream reporters would take his material and publish it?

Suppose there was no Glenn Greenwald to come to Snowden’s aid? Suppose the NSA had such a powerful propaganda arm that the public was utterly convinced the Agency was an angel with wings and was saving countless lives through its technology? Suppose, the public believed every act of NSA spying was comparable to doctors in an emergency room putting an accident victim back together after a car crash?

Snowden would have paused for thought. He would have wondered deeply about whether his leaks would have any effect at all.

Let me give you an example. For years, I have been writing articles about medically caused death in America. One of the key studies I’ve cited is decidedly mainstream. It was published on July 26, 2000, in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The author was Dr. Barbara Starfield, a revered and honored public health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. Starfield concluded that the US medical system kills 225,000 Americans a year.

That would extrapolate to 2.25 MILLION deaths per decade.

Aside from a brief flurry of mainstream press articles that followed Dr. Starfield’s publication, in 2000, the press has been silent. My articles, which have been published at my site and other independent sites, have garnered no mainstream attention. Zero.

I’m not complaining. I’m merely pointing out the degree of mainstream censorship. The medical cartel has great influence.

A medical Edward Snowden, observing the media landscape, would have every reason to pause and consider his options. Why would he risk his reputation, his job, his paycheck, his future, his life, if the cartel he is exposing is so well protected that nothing would come of his bravery?

This is one reason why I write articles about the expanding power and influence of independent media. The day may come, and soon, when a medical Edward Snowden realizes he doesn’t have to find an editor at the New York Times who will look at his treasure trove of data and consider publishing it. Instead, he can pass along that data to any one of a hundred independent media operations and strike gold.

Or he can simply dump all the data on to a site he himself has created, comfortable in the knowledge that these same independent media sources will pick up the data, analyze it, and launch an unstoppable attack on the medical cartel.

Not one day’s coverage. A month, a year of coverage.

Operation Relentless Medical.

Then, the blind spot obscuring medical crimes will recede and vanish.

The public will no longer feel queasy about these revelations; the public will not feel they are witnessing a despicable attack on a wonderful messiah who has come to save the planet.

Eventually, the public will be able to make the distinction between emergency/crisis medicine, where competent and careful doctors (not sloppy and ignorant doctors) can save the lives of people who are lying on streets, after car wrecks, who need to be put back together—the public will be able to separate that from long-term fake medicine, where people are falsely diagnosed and drowned in toxic drugs which create a whole array of new symptoms which are then criminally diagnosed as new medical conditions, leading to the prescription of even more toxic drugs…all the way to the grave.

The public will understand how unnecessary and dangerous surgeries, and unnecessary and poisonous vaccines, are being foisted on them and those they love.

The public will understand. And will rise up.

This is not a pipe dream, if independent media continue to expand, and if they realize revelations of deep medical crimes are at least as important as exposures about the military industrial complex or the spying systems of national governments, or corporate pollution, or high-level money manipulation.

True medical insiders will step forward and reveal the secrets of the Temple.

I assure you, if we are alert, we are far more important and effective than “they” are.

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

“Dominoes of the collective begin to fall. The whole rotting structure begins to collapse, a wing here and a wing there, and the robots open their eyes and turn off their cameras.”

Several years ago, after reading an article of mine, a producer approached me about writing a movie script. He wasn’t sure whether he wanted it to be a documentary or a feature. But he wanted it to be “heroic,” he said. And long.

We had discussions. I sent him notes. The tentative title was, “Cartels of the Mind.” Another possibility was “Free Mind.”

The producer eventually wobbled, then disappeared.

Here are some of those preliminary notes. I’ve recently added one or two comments.

If you can’t see the background of a crime, you aren’t seeing the crime, you’re seeing the sensational effects, that’s all.

There are people who want their own minds to look exactly like the world. They want their minds to look like photographs of the world. This is what they strive for. The idea that they could invent something is so terrifying they opt instead for the world as it is.

This is what amused the surrealists. They started turning things upside down and inside out. They were reacting to humans who had made themselves into robots. Into robot cameras.

The Surveillance State is a robot camera. It captures everything, based on the premise that what isn’t Normal is dangerous.

The cartels of the world become the cartels of the mind.

At the outbreak of World War 2, the Council on Foreign Relations began making plans for the post-war world.

The question it posed was this: could America exist as a self-sufficient nation, or would it have to go outside its borders for vital resources?

Predictably, the answer was: imperial empire.

The US would not only need to obtain natural resources abroad, it would have to embark on endless conquest to assure continued access.

The CFR, of course, wasn’t just some think tank. It was connected to the highest levels of US government, through the State Department. A front for Rockefeller interests, it actually stood above the government.

Behind all its machinations was the presumption that planned societies were the future of the planet. Not open societies.

Through wars, clandestine operations, legislation, treaties, manipulation of nations’ debt, control of banks and money supplies, countries could be turned into “managed units”—and then, with the erasure of borders, combined into regions.

Increasingly, the populations of countries would be regulated and directed and held in thrall to the State.

And the individual? He would go the way of other extinct species.

For several decades, the pseudo-discipline called “social science” had been turning out reams of studies and reports on tribes, societal groupings, and so-called classes of people. But no reports on The Individual.

Deeply embedded in the social sciences were psychological warfare specialists who, after World War 2, emerged with a new academic status and new field of study: mass communications.

Their objective? The broadcasting of messages that would, in accordance with political goals, provoke hostility or pacified acceptance in the masses.

Hostility channeled into support of new wars; acceptance of greater domestic government control.

Nowhere in these formulas was the individual protected. He was considered a wild card, a loose cannon, and he needed to be demeaned, made an outsider, and characterized as a criminal who opposed the needs of the collective.

Collective=robot minds welded into one mind.

As the years and decades passed, this notion of the collective and its requirements, in a “humane civilization,” expanded. Never mind that out of view, the rich were getting richer and poor were getting poorer. That fact was downplayed, and the cover story–”share and care”—took center stage.

On every level of society, people were urged to think of themselves as part of a greater group. The individual and his hopes, his unique dreams, his desires and energies, his determination and will power…all these were portrayed as relics of an unworkable and deluded past.

In many cases, lone pioneers who were innovating in directions that could, in fact, benefit all of humanity, were absorbed into the one body of the collective, heralded as humane…and then dumped on the side of the road with their inventions, and forgotten.

In the planned society, no one rises above the mass, except those men who run and operate and propagandize the mass.

In order to affect the illusion of individual success, as a kind of safety valve for the yearnings of millions of people, the cult of celebrity emerged. But even there, extraordinary tales of rise and then precipitous fall, glory and then humiliation, were and are presented as cautionary melodramas.

This could happen to you. You would be exposed. You would suffer the consequences. Let others take the fall. Keep your mind blank. Do nothing unusual. Shorten your attention span. Disable your own mental machinery. Then you’ll never be tempted to stand out from the mass.

The onrush of technocracy gears its wild promises to genetic manipulation, brain-machine interfaces, and other automatic downloads assuring “greater life.” No effort required. Plug in, and ascend to new heights.

Freedom? Independence? Old flickering dreams vicariously viewed on a screen.

Individual greatness, imagination, creative power? A sunken galleon loaded with treasure that, upon closer investigation, was never there to begin with.

The Plan is all that is important. The plan involves universal surveillance, in order to map the lives of billions of people, move by move, in order to design systems of control within which those billions live, day to day.

But the worst outcome of all is: the individual cannot even conceive of his own life and future in large terms. The individual responds to tighter and control with a shrug, as if to say, “What difference does it make?”

He has bought the collectivist package. His own uniqueness and inner resources are submerged under layers of passive acceptance of the consensus.

And make no mistake about it, this consensus reality, for all its exaltation of the group, is not heraldic in any sense. The propagandized veneer covers a cynical exploitation of every man, woman, and child.

Strapped by an amnesia about his own freedom and what it can truly mean, the individual opts for a place in the collective gloom. He may grumble and complain, but he fits in.

He can’t remember another possibility.

Every enterprise in which he finds himself turns out to be a pale copy of the real thing.

The deep energies and power and desire for freedom remain untapped.

Yet a struggle continues to live. It lives in the hidden places of every individual who wants out, who wants to come back to himself, who wants to stride out on a stage.

Freedom and power again. The shattering of amnesia.

In this stolen nation.

…And so the extinct individual returns.

Petty little hungers and obsessions become great hungers.

Dominoes of the collective begin to fall. The whole rotting structure collapses, a wing here and a wing there, and the robots open their eyes and turn off their cameras.

The vast sticky web called “the people” begins to disintegrate in roaring cities and in the mind.

“Now we have a whole army of experts, whose job is to tell you success only comes with you being part of a group. Your status as an individual is transmitted to you through some diabolical portion of your brain that is loaded with false messages. Therefore, give up on the greatest adventure in the world. Take the elevator down to the basement, get off, and join the crowd. That’s where the love is. That’s where your useless courage dissolves into sugar, and the chorus of complaints will be magically transformed into a paradise of the lowest common denominator. Give up the ghost. You’re home. The sun never rises or sets. Nothing changes. The same sameness rules.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Since the 1960s, many people have decided that, in order to create the future they want, they should engage in a certain amount of introspection.

Spiritual or psychological introspection.

I have encountered a large number of such people, who have swung the balance to the point where introspection has become indecision and paralysis.

There are “so many issues to consider.”

Starting in the 1960s, we saw the import of various Eastern philosophies and practices. They arrived here in diluted and distorted forms. They introduced their own versions of “karma” and “balance” and “surrender” and “abdication to the wishes of the universe.”

“If it doesn’t happen, it wasn’t meant to be.”

In the end, it amounts to waiting around in a cosmic station for a train that never arrives.

Or in psychological terms, it is: “I have to resolve my past before I can pursue my future.” “How can I know what I want if I’m trapped in past conflicts?”

The effect of all this was to diminish the potential realm of human action. It was a kind of court case where all the priors of the defendant were allowed into evidence and dominated the verdict.

More recently, another limiter came on to the scene. It is expressed this way: “Now I see through fake reality, I see how reality is being manipulated by the powers-that-be, so what can I do? We’re at the mercy of these forces.”

I could suggest that these vectors were and are an intentional operation, whose purpose is to demoralize the individual and cut him off from his own freedom, independence, and power. And that would be an accurate assessment. But it wouldn’t tell the whole story, for one vital reason:

The individual is the only person who can change his own course. Others can help, but the final decision is his.

That is bedrock.

And here is the superior principle: even if the individual determines that all is hopeless, he should launch his life anyway. Despite all the good reasons to give up, he should ignore all of them and launch his future.

Because if he does that, he soon begins to see his own view change. It’s not the same anymore.

And this is what freedom and independence and power are all about. Bottom line, these qualities are what you take hold of after you know all is hopeless. That’s the acid test.

Every individual, since the dawn of time, has thought himself into smaller and smaller boxes until there is no space left—and then certain individuals, who are spiritual and metaphysical riverboat gamblers, have shoved in all their chips on projecting action in the world anyway…and they revolutionize their destinies.

That’s what some people have called “inequality of outcome.” That’s the basis for it.

We can go even deeper. What is the ultimate purpose of thought and reflection and introspection? Is it to arrive at certain conclusions, after which the thinker (the person) serves those conclusions like a slave? Or is thought itself a process through which ideas then serve the individual and his goals?

It is the latter.

The first great philosopher of the West, Plato, followed the first path. Which is to say, he applied his mind to understand the basis of reality, and he came to the conclusion that there were immortal and pure Ideas that existed in a higher realm, and they were unchangeable. Society, therefore, could only triumph if certain wise men, who could apprehend these Ideas directly, ruled over everyone else. Thus, the freedom and independence and power of open inquiry led to totalitarianism. Freedom led to slavery.

The individual, when all is said and done, is his own ship. However much he may learn about navigation, there comes the moment when he and his ship leave the shore. He explores. He discovers. He invents.

He invents his own future. No matter what.

We would be fools if we didn’t realize that, down through human history, individuals have grasped, for themselves, all these points.

And when the American Republic was invented, these same points were “background.” What were the checks and balances and the separation of powers all about? What was the reason for the enumeration of federal powers and the granting of all other powers to the states and the people? Why was the federal government squeezed at its extremities? Because the free and independent individual was the true coin of the realm. He needed latitude. He needed legal protection, in the best way it could be provided, from arbitrary power.

Otherwise, why bother?

The Constitution was far more than an extension of independence from England. The men who wrote the Articles and the Bill of Rights, and the men who voted for them and ratified them—to now argue for or against their “deeper motives” is, in the end, a distraction from the fact that the Constitution contains ideas that aid the liberation of the free and independent individual.

The ideas still stand.

They are predicated on the notion that these individuals exist and will launch, despite all reasons not to, their own creative desires and make them fact in the world.

Give us your huddled masses yearning to be free. Masses? No. A mass can never be free. And even if a mass can successfully demand freedom, on whom does that bounty then fall? The individual. This is where the buck stops, and no one can change that truth.

There are those who believe a quiet lake is the end of all existence. And then a boat comes along, and the ripples begin spreading. An individual has arrived.

You can be the person looking at the lake, banking on no-action, or you can be in the boat, forwarding your best ideas and visions and dreams, despite all the reasons not to.

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

In this video, Vin Armani breaks down the recent moves by YouTube, Facebook, Google and the FTC that result in widespread censorship of “controversial” content, including autonomous bots that “restrict” and demonetizing entire topics and channels.

“They [conformists] think society wiser than their soul, and know not that one soul, and their soul, is wiser than the whole world…Society everywhere is in conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members….Whoso would be a man, must be a nonconformist…. Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind.”
— Ralph Waldo Emerson

The collective is often promulgated as the vanguard of society – the gears that keep society moving forward. Truth be told, nothing could be further from the truth. This is because any collective, or any group, is nothing without the individual – it doesn’t even exist. It can’t even exist.

At society’s core, the individual is the main gear that makes the world go round. Like imagination is the foundation of creativity, the individual is the foundation of society.

It’s crucial to comprehend this concept of Collectivism Vs. Individualism, because it’s not something pondered deeply in society nowadays. Individuals are often given a bad rap, as if wanting to be your own being is a bad thing. The term ‘lone wolf’ is often bandied about in negative light regarding individuals. But individuality is not about living life alone, but about maintaining your identity – your individuality, what makes you distinct from everyone else.

No matter what societal structure, job, or group the individual is in, the individual that maintains their identity will be one step ahead of the curve because they will hold the ability to think like an individual, rather than forgo their mental faculties for the group. This is vital, because many times the mental faculties of individuals wither within groups, which is rather deleterious.

For instance, we all have heard of group brainstorming, the epitome of collectivism. Group brainstorming is one form of collectivist structure that seeks creation ‘by the group’ at the expense of the individual. However, this tool is fraught with issues.

“Psychologists usually offer three explanations for the failure of group brainstorming. The first is social loafing: in a group, some individuals tend to sit back and let others do the work. The second is production blocking: only one person can talk or produce an idea at once, while the other group members are forced to sit passively. And the third is evaluation apprehension, meaning the fear of looking stupid in front of one’s peers.”[1][Bold Emphasis added, Italics Emphasis In Original]

How many individuals suffer from such a system? It’s certainly not optimal, although the illusion of it is always pushed as such. Furthermore, due to all those reasons, the imagination and creativity individuals could employ otherwise remain stagnant, rarely if ever used except in rare circumstances.

Moreover, the larger the group becomes, the less efficient it is. This, of course, makes individuals mere cogs in a machine when they could be harnessing their own endless creative potential.

Regarding large group inefficiency, Cain further notes:

“…some forty years of research has researched the same startling conclusion. Studies have shown that performance gets worse as group size increases: groups of nine generate fewer and poorer ideas compared to groups of six, which do worse than groups of four. The “evidence from science suggests that business must be insane to use brainstorming groups,” writes the organizational psychologist Adrian Furnham. “If you have talented and motivated people, they should be encouraged to work alone when creativity and efficiency is the highest priority.”[2][Emphasis added]

Furnham’s words boil down this particular issue to the individual. It’s at that level that individuals shine the brightest.

Hearkening back to issues regarding individuals taking part in groups, Malcom Gladwell, author of the book The Tipping Point, states:

“…when people are asked to consider evidence or make decisions in a group, they come to very different conclusions than when they are asked the same questions by themselves. Once we’re part of a group, we’re susceptible to peer pressure and social norms and any other number of other kinds of influence…”[3][Bold Emphasis Added]

As we can gather, the collective is not where an individual’s maximum potential lies.

When the individual becomes part of the collective, creativity suffers, and thus, his imagination.

That is why it’s up to the individual to make sure they retain their identity if they are ever forced to work in a group, such as in school or work.

Ultimately, what choices an individual makes are dictated by what they see available. When the availability of choices is forcefully narrowed down, the path the individual walks on is limited rather than boundless, and the individual’s choices are less than optimal to say the least.

There is a great saying: “Knowledge is power. Lack of knowledge is lack of power.” A corollary to this would be: Individual potential is based on choices; lack of choices create lack of power. The most significant ways an individual will lack power is when they merge with a group, thus limiting their choices, and as the example above details. As we have learned, brainstorming sessions in large groups are not terribly efficient.

Furthermore, as the individual identifies with the group, they tend to merge with the group mind and rarely ever voice their opinion, for various reasons. This is also highly inefficient because the whole point of group work is to cultivate idea and possibilities.

The ironic part is that group brainstorming, on paper, is about imagination, and yet group brainstorming is antithetical to it since it doesn’t maximize on the potential imagination of every individual and only employs a fraction of it. On the opposite side of that spectrum stands the individual and their maximum potential, every single time.

Individuals which use imagination are self-sufficient in many ways. The Individual that uses imagination not only seeks solutions, but creates them. They don’t take anything at face value. They check, recheck – they research. Why? Because individuals realize they control their own path and are responsible for it. They live a better life, a healthier life, because they imagine better possibilities and put them into action.

These individuals don’t allow themselves to be stopped because they’re incapable of being stopped. That’s not within their DNA. It’s not part of their reality structure.

Curiously, the proclivity to create is so ubiquitous in creative individuals that not creating seems rather foreign. They always seek create beyond the lines, outside ‘the box’ – always in action, always creating. This is why ultimately the individual is the foundation of society.

The canvas of endless possibilities is there for everyone. It requires the desire to create to the nth degree coupled with conscious action for the canvas to become something more than a mere possibility.

___________________________________________________________
This article is free and open source. You are encouraged to share this content and have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Zy Marquiez and TheBreakaway.wordpress.com.
___________________________________________________________About The Author:

His own personal blog is BreakawayConsciousnessBlog.wordpress.com where his personal work is shared, while TheBreakaway.wordpress.com serves as a media portal which mirrors vital information usually ignored by mainstream press, but still highly crucial to our individual understanding of various facets of the world.

The march towards an Orwellian future where every form of human behavior is being monitored by AI-driven appliances and electronics is quickly becoming a reality. This was the plan from the start and as we can see the ruling elite have not slowed down one bit in their attempt to create this kind of world.

It is thus no surprise that Samsung is releasing a new smart phone this week called the S8 and S8+ that has a software called “Bixby” which will be studying your behavior in real-time and will be reacting, responding and “learning” from you accordingly.

The new Samsung S8 smart phone represents one of the first portable devices released to the general public in which the owner will be officially creating a 2-way relationship with the machine. The phone will carry a feature that can be activated which will require biometric data (retinal scan and facial recognition) in order to use the phone, and you can sure many people will take advantage of this feature. Passwords and pin numbers will soon be no more as the masses are conditioned into using biometric data.

“is an intelligent interface that learns from you to help you do more.”

The dark technocratic future of humanity is now coming to full view as the technocratic ruling elite continue to push their technocracy and technology to no end.

The questions that we need to be asking ourselves are questions like, when will humanity as a whole start pushing back? When will those in the Department of Justice demand an end to unnecessary research? When will people in large masses call this out and consider certain advanced scientific research unethical? When will the line be crossed where additional research into certain areas like artificial intelligence (AI) be considered an act of aggression against humanity or even a punishable crime? I’m referring to the people of the nation states demanding observation of human rights to privacy and holding elected officials accountable. And I’m also referring to consumers becoming aware of what they buy and choosing where and how they spend their money.

I believe all of this is part of the JADE (at the) HELM revelations of 2015-2016. A plan for “mastering the human domain.” A plan made possible by companies like Raytheon which have been pushing a thing called BBN AI technology, a highly sophisticated technological platform that incorporates super high speed real-time learning, adaptation and awareness features. (See video below for more.)

Solutions

Stopping the agenda of the technocrats is the solution. People everywhere must step up, begin paying attention and start fighting back. And the very first thing we need to do is shine a bright light on this issue, spread the awareness and hope that enough people see the problem. That means educating the stubborn “Progressive” Liberal Left and anyone else who has a blind faith in technology. This awareness must then turn into action. Here are some solutions.

1- Throw away, disable or stop using your smart phone or any smart device around your home for that matter.

2- Replace your smart phone with a non-smart phone.

3- Change your paradigm and see if you can free yourself from cell phones altogether.

4- Realize that smart phones and smart devices are slowly being pulled into the equation for work and survival. Demand that your boss (if you work for someone) not force you to use a smart device. Let’s challenge the legality of this now growing practice and problem. Just focusing and pointing to the dangers of EMF waves emitted by these devices alone may give us the legal authority to stop employers from requiring the use of these devices.

5- If you must have a cell phone (like many of us do) then learn all the safest ways to use it which include among other things keeping it as far away from your body as possible.

6- As best you can, stop texting your friends and family for every little thing and go back to talking to each other and meeting in person.

7- Make a focused effort to raise awareness of this issue and help spread the word.

Finally, realize that Technocracy is just another form of oppression. Despite all the voices of today that glorify technological advancements, realize that humans are made to move around and work while on earth. It’s the large corporations that want to replace all forms of labor with robots. It’s the ruling elite in control of the nation states that want every form of behavior recorded with the aid of their technology and very little to none of this actually benefits humanity. While many inventions of the 19th century improved the human experience the technological advancements of today are going far beyond what humanity needs to be happy and healthy. Let’s learn to identify this problem quickly so we can implement solutions today and now.

Bernie is a revolutionary writer with a background in medicine, psychology, and information technology. He is the author of The Art of Overcoming the New World Order and has written numerous articles over the years about freedom, government corruption and conspiracies, and solutions. Bernie is also the creator of the Truth and Art TV project where he shares articles and videos about issues that raise our consciousness and offer solutions to our current problems. As a musician and artist his efforts are designed to appeal to intellectuals, working class and artists alike and to encourage others to fearlessly and joyfully stand for truth. His goal is to expose government tactics of propaganda fear and deception and to address the psychology of dealing with the rising new world order. He is also a former U.S. Marine who believes it is our duty to stand for and defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. He believes information and awareness is the first step toward being free from the control system which now threatens humanity. He believes love conquers all fear and it is up to each and every one of us to manifest the solutions and the change that you want to see in this world because doing this is what will ensure victory and restoration of the human race and offer hope to future generations.

Let’s start with an extreme case. A case that has been roiled in emotion for decades. A case that triggers people into making all sorts of comments.

At quora.com, there is an interesting Q and A. The subject is the Nazi holocaust.

The question is: Why is holocaust denial a crime in some countries?

One answer is offered by Olaf Simons, who states he is an “historian at the Gotha Research Centre.” Here is an excerpt:

“Anyone who tells you it [the holocaust] is ‘not real’ (because he has found something to support his doubt) is manipulating you with a political agenda.”

That’s quite a far-reaching assertion. It’s obvious that a) someone might come to the conclusion that the holocaust didn’t happen and b) he has no political agenda. Whether that person’s conclusion about the holocaust is true or false is beside the point. And even if that person did have a political agenda, why should his comments about the holocaust be suppressed?

Olaf Simons takes his argument further: “Holocaust denial is different. It is telling you that all the historical victims are actually cheating the public. It denies families the right to mourn the loss of grandmothers and grandfathers, mothers and fathers, friends and loved ones. It is an attempt to deny Jews the right to remember their collective history – and usually the right to have a Jewish state as a consequence of this, their history. All the Holocaust denier has to do is claim his right of free speech and tell the Jew, who has lost his family, that he is simply a liar. That is the point where we as societies must intervene…”

Doubting or denying the holocaust “denies families the right to mourn” their loss. I’m talking about a person who claims the holocaust didn’t exist. A person who would make an argument against the holocaust by presenting what he believes is evidence. This approach is against the law in Germany and other countries. I fail to see how such an argument denies victims the right to mourn.

Because you believe you are a victim, because you know you are a victim (use any formulation you want to), someone else who claims you’re not a victim actually prevents you from mourning your loss?

I think we can look at groups all over the world, down the long trail of history, who have been persecuted, and we’ll see that no one prevented them from mourning, even in the most dire of circumstances.

In fact, there were occasions where someone denying the persecution ever happened would have been the least of the victims’ worries—because the violence against them was continuing for decades. And still they mourned.

There is, of course, another reason given for banning holocaust deniers. Their speech, even if not intended to provoke, could incite others to commit crimes against the victims.

This is the “one thing leads to another” argument. On that basis, countries and organizations could ban all sorts of language. The slippery slope has no limit.

And on a lesser note, if, for example, I started a site based on the idea that 9/11 was an inside job, and that site became popular enough, a social media giant might ban me or lower my exposure, because I was spreading malicious gossip against the US government, and by implication, giving succor to terrorists. Or I was denying the families of people killed on 9/11 the right to mourn—the right to “mourn properly.”

There are all sorts of reasons for denying the right to free speech.

And there are all sorts of reasons for closing out reasonable debate.

Look at what has been happening on American college campuses. A group wants to bring in a controversial speaker, so students (and paid agitators) riot. College is supposed to be the place where all sides of an issue can be aired and analyzed. Instead, we get violence. What are these college students learning? What are they not learning?

They’re not learning the power of their own minds. If they were, why would they be angry? Why would they be afraid to listen to a person with whom they profoundly disagree?

If someone wants to stand at a podium in a college hall and say Donald Trump is the greatest president in the history of the United States, so what? If someone wants to say Hillary Clinton is a genius and Bernie Sanders is a fool, so what? If someone wants to say college students should stage a revolution by refusing to pay off their loans, so what? If someone wants to say all college freshmen should study Karl Marx and only Karl Marx, so what? Is the sky going to fall?

Suppose a professor tells his students, “You’re all assigned to go to the talk tonight and listen to a speaker who is going to argue that Donald Trump is exactly what American needs now. Take notes. Come to class tomorrow prepared to argue rationally, for or against. And I don’t want you spouting generalities. I want specifics. I want thought.”

Suddenly, many students are going to realize they can’t argue rationally. They don’t have the tools. And that makes them nervous. They move into the role of agitators, because they’ve got nothing else. Suddenly, they’re against free speech.

Instead of making people smarter and sharper, instead of bullet-proofing them against propaganda and anti-logic, instead of educating them so they’re immune to slogans and obvious fallacies, instead of educating them to live in a society where free speech is elevated beyond shouting matches, we are seeing myriad excuses for disallowing free speech.

There is no limit to the excuses. Tomorrow, someone is going to dream up a new one.

Numerous players these days are saying political content on the Internet has to be monitored. They have their covert agendas. But beyond that, there is no reason to monitor political speech. If people can’t deal with competing politics, they need to fortify their IQ. They need to become smarter. That’s the answer.

If we live in a sewer of propaganda, we need to climb out of the sewer.

I could go on with the topic of free speech for another 10,000 words, but I’ll end off, for the moment, with this. Look for the “special case” argument. The strategy: a group has been oppressed, and they deserve compensation and justice, AND part of justice is ensuring that language is never used to criticize the group, because they are special, owing to the amount of persecution that has been visited on them. This particular group is different. They must be served. They must never be discussed in terms that, even vaguely, could be construed as negative.

No free speech in that case.

But wait. There is another group, and it, too, is special.

And another group.

And pretty soon, free speech is walking around with canes and crutches and sitting in wheelchairs and tubes are hooked up to it.

Even worse, people are focused on the issue of free speech as if it consists of nothing more than nasty remarks; and the burning question is, who has a right to be nasty, and in what situations, and for what reasons?

Whereas, the intent and hope for free speech was that it would rise higher and elevate into conversation that actually sought the truth, and examined basic principles on which that truth would stand.

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

“The unexamined life is not worth living for a human being.”
– Socrates

It certainly seems these days that not a moment goes by without someone having some sort of disagreement. Not that people should always agree about everything, that’s not the point. Disagreements come in all shapes and forms, just like people do. With that said, it seems like a lot of the disagreements that abound nowadays regard a certain section of the populace’s ceaseless push to inculcate their beliefs on others, regardless of the consequences.

There seems to be two prevailing schools of thought out there regarding how to handle these situations. When aiding others in their search for truth, the initial school of thought [non-conformists] doesn’t mind when other individuals ask them questions about beliefs and ideas discussed. The second group [conformists] takes downright offense to anyone questioning them on anything. The former seeks to help the individual arrive at their own truth; the latter seeks to be the high priest, just like those of ancient times, who controlled the free flow of certain information.

This particular trend of individuals not wanting to be questioned seems to be growing in quite a few circles.Individuals who do wish to carry out further inquiry to seek firmer ground have nigh no options when speaking to closed-minded conformists because ultimately with a conformist, it’s their way or the highway.Ironically, what is happening to those who seek firmer ground is not unlike what happened to the “Father of Philosophy,” Socrates, over two millennia ago.

Socrates was feared because he wasn’t afraid of questioning an individual’s beliefs about any given subject, similar to individuals today who question the official narrative on myriad issues. In parallel fashion to modern conformists, in Socrates’ time the ultimate conformists of the time – as with much of history – was the state. This see saw bout of ideals that took place back then still takes place now as we can see. For all intents and purposes, because of his very ideals, Socrates is the Godfather of Non-conformity. Socrates is the living definition of a question mark.

With the Socratic Method – of querying deeply into the subject – Socrates would begin to dissect an individual’s paradigm and those inherent flaws if any, usually in the realms of justice and goodness. Because of Socrates’ method, many times the paradigms individuals had – inculcated by the state and by religion – would drastically shift or disintegrate altogether, and begin something anew. This lead the state to lash out against him for questioning the system, particularly the “might makes right” the state was notorious known for, and eventually got him executed.

The state feared that the changes Socrates’ was bringing about in the populace would continue to spread, and from their tyrannical point of view they could not allow that. Thankfully though, most of what he was able to accomplish still echoes to this day – even to this very post, thousands of years later.

In similar fashion, nowadays, people who push conformity are doing themselves and the other individuals a great disservice. This is because individuals pushing conformity are: [1] not being open minded, thus [2] not allowing themselves to grow by being able to see another individual’s point of view, whether it is true or not. Further, by attempting to force conformity on others they are [3] taking away a terrific learning opportunity from individuals truly seeking answers to poignant questions, and [4] in the worst case, these conformists are even losing relationships because of fear of the ego being overridden, as well as their beliefs possibly being shown to be made of hot air. All of this stands against the very nature of free-flowing inquiry.

Keen conversations of proactive mental discernment should have a certain flow, like a see saw, a back and forth between [like or unlike] minds. However, what is taking place is far from such a common sense and proactive approach. The talks that are taking place currently between conformists and non-conformists echo a societal instability brought about by the conformist that will only exacerbate with time.

Intricately, this particular issue is touched upon in the thought-provoking book Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind, by Shunryu Suzuki, who cautions individuals on this very subject:

“Try not to force your idea on someone but rather think about it with him. If you feel you have won the discussion, that is also the wrong attitude. Try not to win in the argument; just listen to it; but it is also wrong to behave as if you had lost. Usually when we say something, we are apt to try to sell our teaching or force our idea.”[1]

In other words, allow others the freedom to make choices, to find their own path – to make mistakes. That is one of the best ways individuals grow, by learning from their choices. However, forcing opinions and/or beliefs on others is diametrically opposed to all that is good and sensible. Moreover, not only is overriding someone’s freedoms rather inhuman, or conformist to say the least, but it goes directly against the very idea of Freedom and its downright tyrannical. In contrast, if conformists would opt to listen to others, as happens in free-flowing conversations of open-minded individuals, those pushing their beliefs and agendas would come to an understanding as to why the other individual feels reticent to the particular issue. That simple step can help magnitudes in understanding where another person is coming from and why the other person feels as they feel. A conformist’s conversations never even get that far. Ironically, that would also be the place where arguably most progress could be made.

If inquiring individuals who wish to engage in mental discernment are not allowed their own personal moment of clarity – of piercing through the veil – they will not own the moment – know the truth – but merely borrow another person’s footsteps as their own. Such an instance robs the individuals of making great progress in their strides for the truth and thus leaves them at square one.

When someone is forced to intellectually conform they are not allowed the freedom to philosophize – to seek wisdom. Philosophy is crucial, for it literally means the love of wisdom. How is an individual ever going to gain insights, journey to wisdom, unless they are allowed or even urged to ask questions?

“If we do not philosophize, if we do not question appearances, if we are satisfied with whatever makes us feel happy, we will never know whether we are being deceived about who we are and what level of our being is being satisfied.”[2]

An individual that is not allowed to hone their senses and polish their intuition will not have the opportunity to learn to see the forest for the trees. If said individual merely accepts the authoritarian conformist’s attitudes they will suffer in many ways. These inquiring individuals will have a harder time – or nigh impossible time – figuring out deception [as we are seeing nowadays]; these individuals won’t be able to figure out a well argued argument based on facts and logic from outright speculation or downright lies; these genuinely curious individuals will also not be able to become as robust and self sufficient as possible as they could be in this coming age of [dis]information. Such an individual will be just like a boat in the ocean with a busted sail that is drifting aimlessly directly into an eternal storm.

That is why it’s imperative as individuals to help others realize their full potential as they seek truth and growth within our world. As other individuals grow, they will share what made them change in positive fashion. And as we learn from them, we can learn as well, and it begins a self reinforcing process in which the rising tide lifts all ships.

Ruminating a bit deeper into this entire conundrum, maybe this issue is about more than truth though. Perhaps there’s more on the line than meets the eye. What seems to be missing to some extent, in some individuals at least, is simply the ability for them to be caring human beings, regardless of beliefs. A truly caring, wholesome individual will not simply railroad someone else because they believe something different or refuse to believe them.

It seems that following a personal philosophy of seeking personal growth through an attempted mastery of your mental and spiritual wellbeing seems like a prudent choice to say the least. And personal growth involves more than just attaining truth or strengthening beliefs.

Observing the words of Kreeft once more:

“Wisdom is more than knowledge. Knowing all facts in a library does not make you wise. Wisdom is a knowledge not just of facts but of values, of what is humanly important; and it is a knowledge that is a lived, that is learned by experience and lived out in experience.”[3]

When conformists push their ideals and beliefs onto inquiring individuals, they take away the opportunity for those individuals to have meaningful experiences for growth and self-development, which includes more than simple truths or beliefs. Those instances may never take place again. Individuals that are not allowed to live to their fullest extent will only realize a fraction of the capability they would otherwise be able to achieve if they were allowed to venture upon their personal road less traveled – their individual journey.

Those who are allowed to gain personal insights on their road to self mastery will not only grow profoundly but will also develop a more robust Socratic Philosophy, just like the Greeks did in ancient times.

Such is the reason why appearances, beliefs and supposed facts must always be questioned. For if they are not, what might be hidden will never rise to the surface and will not be able to be seen in pure darkness. Truth is the only light beam that disintegrates the shadows. And the only way to attain truth is for individuals to hone their inner fire, their inner light.

Touching upon this very concern, award winning teacher, advocate of self-directed learning and of individual freedom, John Taylor Gatto urged in his landmark book Dumbing Us Down:

“People have to be allowed to make their own mistakes or to try again, or they will never master themselves, although they may well seem to be competent when they have in fact only memorized or imitated someone else’s performance. Success in my practice involves challenging many comfortable assumptions about what is worth learning and out of what material a good life is fashioned.”[5]

Questioning our conformable assumptions – our beliefs – about what is worth learning – for each individual – and bring about most growth is what this entire conundrum is about. That is why it is crucial that:

“One should not present others with ready-made answers, preach to them, or only make them memorize things. One needs to activate them. They should figure things out. The ambition can even be to liberate them.”[6]

To help individuals achieve total freedom – physically, spiritually, psychologically, emotionally and mentally – they need to be encouraged to walk their own path, learn their own lessons – find their own wisdom.

If individuals aren’t allowed to grow, or choose not to, their mental faculties will atrophy, like someone who uses crutches constantly has their muscles atrophy from disuse.

As friends, colleagues, or simply caring human beings, perhaps it is imperative not to worry only about our subjective ideas, beliefs, or even outright facts. What’s important is helping the other individual wherever they may need help, along their road, so they can then better understand whatever it is that they seek knowledge in. What got them to their current point in life is vastly different to what got you to yours. In like fashion, what gets them to the truth will most likely be vastly different than what got you to it.

Allowing other individuals the opportunity for growth is one of the greatest gifts we can give to another human being in their journey. Along this journey, other individuals may at times need help.Walk along side them, as long as they need, and help them when possible. But remember, their life is their journey.

While your paths may cross time and again, ultimately an individual’s journey will be a rather unique and authentic experience. Along this path, the side of the road will surely be rife with random rocks lacking meaning. But now and again, among/amidst the ruble, an individual’s curiosities will be sparked by sparkles of truth, and they will find gratifying gems. These are the very gems of wisdom that will push individuals further down their path to intellectual treasure, further towards their adventure for truth – towards individual growth.

Ultimately, what another individual does is up to them, for its their life, their freedom, their choice. However, that doesn’t mean you can’t help them along that journey. Just help them in any way you can, especially if they implore you for help. That’s what friendship is all about. That’s what being a caring human being is all about.

And maybe, just maybe, one day these individuals will realize that it was you whose left some of those gems along their road, and that they’ve been given a gift, and that it’s been there all along, just waiting for the right moment.

And the right moment is now.

Give them that gift.
____________________________________________________________
Footnotes:

His own personal blog is BreakawayConsciousnessBlog.wordpress.com where his personal work is shared, while TheBreakaway.wordpress.com serves as a media portal which mirrors vital information usually ignored by mainstream press, but still highly crucial to our individual understanding of various facets of the world.

“Real books disgust the totalitarian mind because they generate uncontrollable mental growth – and it cannot be monitored.”
John Taylor Gatto, A Different Kind Of Teacher, p. 82.

“So often, a visit to a bookshop has cheered me, and reminded me that there are good things in the world.”
– Vincent Van Gogh

“If we encounter a man of rare intellect, we should ask him what books he reads.”
― Ralph Waldo Emerson

Whether you are a reader, student, a teacher, a writer, a researcher, an editor, a scholar, or someone who loves books, you have undoubtedly experienced the feeling of being swept away by words. Individuals of all types, who use the written word as a form of expression, often showcase in one way shape or form, a new world, a different world, one of possibilities, one of vision, one of depth. Such instances often leave the reader feeling thankful for having experienced what they just did.

In similar fashion, the author of the following book, Mangel, paints a historical picture with such clarity and precision that it allows the reader to journey through the pages of time as if we were right there with other readers, even sampling actions and thoughts at times.

A History Of Reading by Alberto Manguel is an intriguing and in depth overarching overview of most circumstances that involve reading throughout the pages of history.

The book is essentially a conjunction of two different elements: part personal diary and part scholarly research.

Cogent and incisive, Manguel does not hesitate in delving into the full spectrum that encompasses a bibliophile’s delight, weaving through countless historical instances which home in on crucial events around the history of books and reading.

For instance, the author not only covers absorbing anecdotes, individuals and the origins of reading, but also curious ventures of prominent individuals who had prodigious libraries of all types, one of which insisted on having his library travel with him.

Manguel notes:

“In the tenth century, for instance, the Grand Vizier of Persia, Abdul Kassem Ismael, in order not to part with his collection of 117,000 volumes when travelling, had them carried by a caravan of four hundred camels trained to walk in alphabetical order.”[1]

A bibliophile to boot, no doubt!

Beyond that, the book also features intriguing anecdotes of a wide range which infuse into the reader full range of emotions that readers of all types experience. Regarding this topic, the author states:

“The act of reading establishes an intimate, physical relationship in which all the sense have a part: the eyes drawing the words from the page, the ears echoing the sounds being read, the nose inhaling the familiar scent of paper, glue, ink, cardboard or leather, the touch caressing the rough or soft page, the smooth or hard binding; even the taste; at times, when the reader’s fingers are lifted to the tongue.”[2]

Manguel also does a fine job of making sure the reader gets a taste of what it would have been to be a reader throughout other distinct time periods.

Additionally, Manguel covers the Library of Alexandria, book thieves, reading the future, ancient librarians, and much more.

Another noteworthy historical point of consideration examined was the relentless censorship that governments have undertaken of books. Such immoral instances show the inherent fear governments have of educated individuals due to the salient self-sufficiency and power that books can impart.

As the author soberingly contemplates:

“As centuries of dictators have shown, an illiterate crowd is easiest to rule; since the craft of reading cannot be untaught once it has been acquired, the second-best recourse is to limit its scope. Therefore, like no other human creation, books have been the bane of dictatorships.”[3]

Given that we are in an age where censorship of the written and spoken word is increasing across social media platforms and through many media outlets as well, such words should be ruminated upon deeply. Modern society is once again entering into an crucial age of censorship, and in this new age the excuse for it is the meme of “Fake News”, which is being bandied about relentlessly . This is leading to an unprecedented tidal wave of censorship by those in power. And as history shows, it’s probably going to get much worse.

Manguel speaks about this same issue:

“Absolute power requires that all reading be official reading; instead of whole libraries of opinions, the ruler’s word should suffice.”[4]

And the ruler’s words, in modern times, comes mostly through the mainstream media.

Nothing frees a mind more than a book, for it allows readers to be self-sufficient and be able to be free to the fullest extent of the word. That’s why historically, books have always been dangerous.

With that said, the book covers much more than mere censorship, and censorship is only a fraction of the totality collated by the author. The book still covers a kaleidoscope of information to satiate the curious reader.

Regardless though, books are to be enjoyed, and the ironic part is that, reading a book about reading made me want to read even more than ever before. And perhaps, this book can do the same for you.

___________________________________________________________
This article is free and open source. You are encouraged and have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Zy Marquiez and TheBreakaway.wordpress.com.
___________________________________________________________About The Author:

His own personal blog is BreakawayConsciousnessBlog.wordpress.com where his personal work is shared, while TheBreakaway.wordpress.com serves as a media portal which mirrors vital information usually ignored by mainstream press, but still highly crucial to our individual understanding of various facets of the world.

Well, sure. Wouldn’t you? The woman is running for the presidency of France. She wants to reverse the tide of immigration in her country, so she must be a racist, and whatever she says or whatever anyone else says in support of her is, automatically, fake news, mindless, evil, and the population must be protected from that infection. This is how free speech works. It’s free unless it could do harm, unless certain minds might be taken in by it, and apparently Facebook is stepping up to the plate. Mark Zuckerberg is long overdue for a Nobel Peace Prize.

Zero Hedge: “The first round of French elections will be held on April 23rd, prompting Facebook to shut down pro Le Pen accounts, which they deem to be ‘fake’.”

“In addition to outright bans, the company [Facebook], in conjunction with French media, are running ‘fact checking’ programs — designed to fight ‘fake news’, heightening their efforts around the elections — which spans from 4/23-5/7.”

France must be purified. Only then can media function.

Immigration, you have to understand, isn’t an issue. There is nothing to debate. Immigration is a fact, wholly beautiful, and anyone who wants to limit it is speaking against love, flowers, and the proposition that the sun rises every morning.

Facebook is providing a public service. Just as Mussolini made the trains run on time in Italy, FB is making the news run on time—the real news.

Fake news should be shut down. Free speech only concerns what isn’t fake. Yes, I’m beginning to see the light.

After fake news is purged, then we can have free speech.

Aha. Yes.

Somehow, I must have missed this when I studied the 1st Amendment. James Madison, who wrote it, made this note: “Except for fake news.”

The guiding principle should be: if you’re not sure whether an item or issue or report is fake, don’t talk about it, don’t write about it, don’t express an opinion about it, until the authorities have cleared things up, until they’ve decided whether it’s fake or real.

Mark Zuckerberg is providing us with an easy way to check. If he and his people censor a post, it’s fake. Ignore it. Remain silent.

And if you’re French, don’t vote for Le Pen, unless you want a faker as your president.

Things are basically simple. They really are. If you know how to follow the signs and the warnings and the people in charge.

For example, right now I can sense an errant thought creeping into my mind: a corporation based in the US is colluding with the French government to influence an election in France. But I reject that thought. I denounce it. I urge everyone to denounce it. Pretend I never uttered the thought.

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Lee’s widely known for his martial arts prowess, but he was quite the philosopher as well. He is definitely a mind that strove to learn as much as possible, from as many places as possible.

In college, Bruce Lee ended up taking a philosophy course that would change his life. From this impetus, Lee sought to learn from the greatest thinkers in the world. Interestingly, he chose to remain open minded in his new ventures in learning. Lee did not narrow down his exploration to any particular philosophy or culture. Instead, he sought to learn from all of them.

This foundation upon which he built his philosophy – ranging the full breadth of everyone he learned from – strengthened him as an individual. It matters not whether from East or West, ancient or modern, Bruce Lee went above and beyond to learn from the full breadth and scope available in history.

And yet, even though many people saw Lee as a teacher, he often said:

“A teacher is never a giver of truth; he is a guide, a pointer to the truth that each student must find for himself. A good teacher is merely a catalyst.”[1][Bold Emphasis Added]

For me, in this current moment, there is no better catalyst to learn from than Lee. Having read dozens of his aphorisms this last week, there’s been much learned from his insights. Particularly, Lee was as flexible an individual as ever existed. He did not restrict himself into any particular type of
thought, system, or belief. In fact, he was loathe to blind obedience and external authority.

This resonates deeply with me, because as someone who is regularly pointing out that part of society seeks to conform you and mold into what they want, learning from someone who espoused true individuality is a breath of fresh air. And unbounded individuality ultimately leads to Freedom.

Lee elucidates:

“True observation begins when one sheds set patterns, and true freedom of expression occurs when one is beyond systems.”[2][Bold Emphasis Added]

Being beyond systems, being beyond conformity is the true way of the Individual, and that is the ultimate gateway to Freedom.

In that respect, there’s much to learn from Bruce Lee.

For those keen reasons, and many others, that’s why individuals should seek to learn as much as they can from Lee, or anyone else that resonates with their inner being. Not to conform to any preconceived idea or beliefs, but to learn to be fluid, to learn to be free.Ponder these ideas deeply and ruminate upon what suits you best, for only you know what is best for you.

In life, the most honest self-expression is Individual Freedom, and the most powerful catalyst for this is by being in tune with your innermost self. It is in this understanding that we will be able to live life to the fullest.

And isn’t that what life is about?

___________________________________________________________
Source:

[1] Bruce Lee, Striking Thoughts: Bruce Lee’s Wisdom For Daily Living by Bruce Lee, pg. xv.
[2] Ibid.
___________________________________________________________
This article is free and open source. You are encouraged and have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Zy Marquiez and TheBreakaway.wordpress.com.
___________________________________________________________About The Author:

His own personal blog is BreakawayConsciousnessBlog.wordpress.com where his personal work is shared, while TheBreakaway.wordpress.com serves as a media portal which mirrors vital information usually ignored by mainstream press, but still highly crucial to our individual understanding of various facets of the world.

Having John Taylor Gatto recommend this book in one of his interviews, it felt natural to want to avail myself of this historical information and its insights.

The Autobiography Of Benjamin Franklin by Benjamin Franklin is an overarching glance at the inner ruminations and significant instances of Franklin’s life, but not all.

Although smaller in size than most hardcover books, the book still feels like a high quality book to boot.

Offering a map to most of the intriguing areas of Franklin’s life, though not all, this autobiography offers anecdotes of all types within his life. In one of these instances Franklin mentions how his father used to have guests over for dinner and conversation, and how that offered immense value to him. As the following passage alludes:

“At his table he liked to have, as often as he could, some sensible friend or neighbor to converse with, and always took care to start some ingenious or useful topic for discourse, which might tend to improve the minds of his children. By this means he turned our attention to what was good and just, and prudent in conduct of life…”[1]

Not only did Franklin learn in such a manner, but he also learned from watching others partake in their craft quite often. Beyond that, Franklin also sought many a book to sharpen his mental faculties.

Fortuitously, during a discussion about writing with his father, Franklin was told by him that although Franklin was quite proficient in spelling and such, he still fell quite short in “elegance of expression”. Realizing this to be true, the help his father gave allowed Franklin to become more attentive and polished in writing.

Soon thereafter, Franklin found a volume of Spectator which provided the impetus for Franklin to employ self-learning at a scale he had not undertaken before. This in effect lead to Franklin creating a system of deliberate practice that allowed him to become proficient in writing.

“Significantly, he [Franklin] did not try to become a better essay writer by sitting down and writing essays. Instead, like a top-ranked athlete or musician, he worked over and over on those specific aspects that needed improvement. First came sentence structure which he attacked precisely in accord with deliberate practice principles. His method of summarizing and reformulating Spectator sentences y one by one was designed ingeniously for that purpose. He repeated that routine at high volume…and he got immediate feedback by comparing his sentences to the original. When he decided to work on another element of performance, vocabulary, he again designed a brilliant practice structure, versification, with high volume and immediate feedback. “[2]

Following that, knowing that he lacked a wide-ranging vocabulary, Franklin showed his intellectual versatility when he chose to employ poetry to increase his writing repertoire.

The fact that Franklin used self-teaching to achieve unparalleled self-sufficiency in this regard shouldn’t be glossed over because there’s much to glean from it !!!!! considering that that is a keen quality to have but which public schools and even Universities fail to teach.

Another intricate aspect of Franklin’s life was how he employed persuasion. In respect to this, Franklin delves into his insights in persuasion and argumentation, which allowed him to speak to others in various disputes and conversations in a way that helped him foster sound judgment and more profitable interactions with other individuals.

Besides his youth, Franklin also covers his desire to master virtues of self-mastery in order to increase his quality of consciousness, and even designed a small system of implementation for himself in order to bring it about. And although Franklin continued growing as an individual, he still was savvy enough to realize he was still quite proud, and even then sought to attain more humility, even though it at times seemed paradoxical.

For instance:

“In reality, there is, perhaps, no one of our natural passions so hard to subdue as pride. Disguise it, struggle with it, beat it down, stifle it, mortify it as much as one pleases, it is still alive, and will every now and then peep out and show itself; you will see it, perhaps, often in this history; for, even if I could conceive that I had completely overcome it, I should probably be proud of my humility.”[3]

Such a passage will go show that although Franklin had much pride, he still sought to attain humility as much as possible, even if he might never quite attain it.

Even though Franklin covers some successes in life such as business, some of his philosophy, and even idea of individuals attaining freedom through the employment of handwork and wisdom, the book doesn’t extend into his life during the Revolution. That was quite unfortunate for his ruminations on that would have been valuable.

Another point not covered by Franklin is his membership to the Freemasons. This would have also been significant, but it’s also not surprising that he did not cover it. That said, the book to a large extent covers what Franklin saw as valuable at the time at key junctures of his life. Franklin’s insights into virtues and dealings with other individuals and his creation of a system of deliberate practice shows this best. To some extent, the book almost reads like a self-help book, but not quite so.

Irrespective of all that, the book does have some bite to it, but it’s not the end-all be-all of Benjamin Franklin’s life. As an introductory volume in understanding the man in his own words, it’s quite invaluable, if garrulous at times.

His own personal blog is BreakawayConsciousnessBlog.wordpress.com where his personal work is shared, while TheBreakaway.wordpress.com serves as a media portal which mirrors vital information usually ignored by mainstream press, but still highly crucial to our individual understanding of various facets of the world.

Men who can hide in plain sight? Men who don’t need to be elected to public office? Men who can laugh at their critics and call them conspiracy theorists and purveyors of fake news? Men who can determine financial and banking policy? Men who can set up corporate tribunals that nullify national courts? Men who can set virtually any national policy agenda they want to?

If an honest press existed, all this would be out in the open by now.

If, as many people are now saying, the CIA and NSA and neocons are the unelected Deep State, then the people I’m talking about would be the Deep, Deep State.

Read on.

Many people think the Trilateral Commission (TC), created in 1973 by David Rockefeller, is a relic of an older time.

Think again.

Patrick Wood, author of Trilaterals Over Washington, points out there are only 87 members of the Trilateral Commission who live in America. Obama appointed eleven of them to posts in his administration.

Keep in mind that the original stated goal of the TC was to create “a new international economic order.” Knowing that you have to break eggs to make an omelet, consider how the following TC members, in key Obama posts, could have helped engender further national chaos; erase our sovereign national borders; and install binding international agreements that will envelop our economy and money in a deeper global collective: a new world order:

Tim Geithner, Treasury Secretary;

James Jones, National Security Advisor;

Paul Volker, Chairman, Economic Recovery Committee;

Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence.

All Trilateralists.

In the run-up to his inauguration after the 2008 presidential election, Obama was tutored by the co-founder of the Trilateral Commission, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

In Europe, the financially embattled nations of Greece and Italy brought in Lucas Papademos and Mario Monti as prime ministers. Both men are Trilateral members, and Monti is the former European chairman of the Trilateral Commission.

In the US, since 1973, author Wood counts eight out of 10 US Trade Representative appointments, and six out of eight World Bank presidents, as American Trilateral members.

Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote, four years before birthing the TC in 1973, with his godfather, David Rockefeller: “[The] nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force. International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation state.”

Several other noteworthy Trilateral members: George HW Bush; Bill Clinton; Dick Cheney; Al Gore. The first three men helped sink the US further into debt by fomenting wars abroad; and Gore’s cap and trade blueprint would destroy industrial economies, while vastly increasing the numbers of people in Third World countries who have no access to modern sources of energy.

Does all this offer a clue as to why the US economy has failed to recover from the Wall Street debacle of 2008, why the federal bailout was a handout to super-rich criminals, and why Obama took no actions which would have brought about an authentic recovery?

How many foxes in the hen house do we need, before we realize their Trilateral agenda is controlling the direction of our economy?

The TC has no interest in building up the American economy. They want to torpedo it, as part of the end-game of creating a de facto Globalist management system for the whole planet.

Any doubt on the question of TC goals is answered by David Rockefeller himself, the founder of the TC, in his Memoirs (2003): “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

Even in what many people mistakenly think of as the TC’s heyday, the 1970s, there were few who realized its overarching power.

Here is a close-up snap shot of a remarkable moment from out of the past. It’s a through-the-looking-glass secret—in the form of a conversation between a reporter, Jeremiah Novak, and two Trilateral Commission members, Karl Kaiser and Richard Cooper. The interview took place in 1978. It concerned the issue of who exactly, during President Carter’s administration, was formulating US economic and political policy.

The careless and off-hand attitude of Trilateralists Kaiser and Cooper is astonishing. It’s as if they’re saying, “What we’re revealing is already out in the open, it’s too late to do anything about it, why are you so worked up, we’ve already won…”

NOVAK (the reporter): Is it true that a private [Trilateral committee] led by Henry Owen of the US and made up of [Trilateral] representatives of the US, UK, West Germany, Japan, France and the EEC is coordinating the economic and political policies of the Trilateral countries [which would include the US]?

COOPER: Yes, they have met three times.

NOVAK: Yet, in your recent paper you state that this committee should remain informal because to formalize ‘this function might well prove offensive to some of the Trilateral and other countries which do not take part.’ Who are you afraid of?

KAISER: Many countries in Europe would resent the dominant role that West Germany plays at these [Trilateral] meetings.

COOPER: Many people still live in a world of separate nations, and they would resent such coordination [of policy].

NOVAK: But this [Trilateral] committee is essential to your whole policy. How can you keep it a secret or fail to try to get popular support [for its decisions on how Trilateral member nations will conduct their economic and political policies]?

COOPER: Well, I guess it’s the press’ job to publicize it.

NOVAK: Yes, but why doesn’t President Carter come out with it and tell the American people that [US] economic and political power is being coordinated by a [Trilateral] committee made up of Henry Owen and six others? After all, if [US] policy is being made on a multinational level, the people should know.

COOPER: President Carter and Secretary of State Vance have constantly alluded to this in their speeches.

KAISER: It just hasn’t become an issue.

SOURCE: “Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management,” ed. by Holly Sklar, 1980. South End Press, Boston. Pages 192-3.

Of course, although Kaiser and Cooper claimed everything being manipulated by the Trilateral Commission committee was already out in the open, it wasn’t.

Their interview slipped under the mainstream media radar, which is to say, it was ignored and buried. It didn’t become a scandal on the level of, say, Watergate, although its essence was far larger than Watergate.

US economic and political policy run by a committee of the Trilateral Commission—the Commission had been created in 1973 as an “informal discussion group” by David Rockefeller and his sidekick, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who would become Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor.

Shortly after Carter won the presidential election, his aide, Hamilton Jordan, said that if after the inauguration, Cy Vance and Brzezinski came on board as secretary of state and national security adviser, “We’ve lost. And I’ll quit.” Lost—because both men were powerful members of the Trilateral Commission and their appointment to key positions would signal a surrender of White House control to the Commission.

Vance and Brzezinski were appointed secretary of state and national security adviser, as Jordan feared. But he didn’t quit. He became Carter’s chief of staff.

Now consider the vast propaganda efforts of the past 40 years, on so many levels, to install the idea that all nations and peoples of the world are a single Collective.

From a very high level of political and economic power, this propaganda op has had the objective of grooming the population for a planet that is one coagulated mass, run and managed by one force.

Deep State.

Trump, who squashed the Globalist TPP treaty as soon as he was inaugurated, has nevertheless appointed a significant Trilateral member to a major post. Patrick Wood writes (2/6/17):

“According to a White House press release, the first member of the Trilateral Commission has entered the Trump administration as the Deputy Assistant to the President for International Economic Affairs, where he will sit on the National Security Council [as deputy director]:

“’Kenneth I. Juster will serve as Deputy Assistant to the President for International Economic Affairs. He will coordinate the Administration’s international economic policy and integrate it with national security and foreign policy. He will also be the President’s representative and lead U.S. negotiator (“Sherpa”) for the annual G-7, G-20, and APEC Summits’.”

Juster’s duties will take him into the heart of high-level negotiations with foreign governments on economic policy.

Note: In this article, I’m not listing Trump appointees who are members of another Rockefeller deep-state organization, the Council on Foreign Relations. Suffice to say, the CFR is a brother of the Trilateral Commission, and, when push comes to shove, the lesser brother. And finally, Goldman Sachs, whose people Trump has surrounded himself with, is a corporate member of the CFR…

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

“Human spirit is the ability to face the uncertainty of the future with curiosity and optimism. It is the belief that problems can be solved, differences resolved. It is a type of confidence. And it is fragile. It can be blackened by fear and superstition.”
– Bernard Beckett

“The first and simplest emotion which we discover in the human mind, is curiosity.”
– Edmund Burke

Children are the most inherently curious people on earth by far. This is in their very nature, like breathing is to people. Watching a youngling carry on and about, asking questions about everything in sight is a wondrous sight. It matters not what lies in front of them, there is no mountain to high, or not valley to low. They are capable, because their curiosity hasn’t been dampened by society. In their nascent stages, a child’s imagination is boundless; this prompts children to see reality itself as boundless, which allows them live in a world of vibrant stories and endless journeys which have not been stultified. In fact, they believe they are so capable they often get themselves in trouble, as we have come to know.

Because children are inherently curious, they act as little sages, they are like little philosophers. Ironically, philosophy means the love of wisdom. Children, by using their curiosity as a platform for understanding the world, are attempting to gain wisdom of reality and its inherent intricacies. There is much to be learned about that.

From the full breadth and scope of human history, two of the best philosophers to learn from Socrates and Descartes. The former is known as “the Father of Philosophy” and represents best classical philosophy; the latter is known as “the Father of Modern Philosophy” and represents best of modern philosophy.

What all children have in common with these two great minds is their ability to question. Just like Socrates and Descartes employed the ability to question everything, so do children. This is a great gift, because it yields many results in gaining knowledge of the world, and more importantly, of the self.

Unfortunately, later in life, children’s curiosity gets shoved brashly aside. One could even go as far to say that curiosity is surgically removed from the individual’s repertoire and only a ghost of curiosity’s former self remains. Whether by parents, public schooling, church, or any other way, children are asked to: [1] conform to standards imposed on them stifling their uniqueness and creativity, [2] to trust authority unquestioningly, and by trusting authority they are ‘taught’ [which in other vernacular is called indoctrinated] into [3] not questioning authority. That triumvirate of nonsense [sn] leaves kids, like a ship with a busted rudder unable to sail in the sea, unable to be free in mind as they would be if they weren’t forced to conform. Moreover, these children grow into adults that are incapable of questioning anything because they do not have the curiosity that’s the fuel for seeking truth and employing critical thinking. We also know that critical thinking does not get taught in public schooling.

All of these above issues cause a great imbalance, because the individual forfeits their natural path that they would have originally followed had they not been stultified

While adults have a much harder time posing questions beyond superficial ones, if they even do so at all, children are vastly capable until their creativity is corralled. Before the creative consciousness of individual gets sealed away in a vault, it’s important not to allow that ever to take place. Curiosity needs to be fostered and cared for in continuous fashion. It’s the inherent curiosity that children feature which the adult world lacks in droves.

The child is a natural questioner. It is not the number of questions he asks but their character that distinguishes him from the adult. Adults do not lose the curiosity that seems to be a native trait, but their curiosity deteriorates in quality. They want to know whether something is so, not why. But children’s questions are not limited to the sort that can be answered by an encyclopedia.[Bold Emphasis Added][1][Emphasis Added]

Adults, however, seem to lack this very type of curiosity, the boundless type. Admittedly, adults are ‘curious’ about the weather, or about other superficial issues, but it’s not even close to the same magnitude. Part of the reason is because as adults, we have been taught not to question and we have been indoctrinated to follow orders and always follow authority. Trust authority is something that gets hammered in our youth, like nails. This is why adults follow orders en mass in modern days, even though over a century ago this wasn’t always so.

What makes it worse is that when adults see other people ask questions and get reamed by for it, as if questioning authority is a deadly sin, the learn to retreat into a state of fear and conformity falling back into ‘official reality’ – the one in which you must not question. Continuous conformity continues to tow the party line of via this mass societal engineering with nigh no end in sight.

Regardless of how people ended up losing curiosity and end up conforming, if an individual never leaves the confining, restrictive and stultifying part of the system, the individual will never be able to become an incisive, questioning, critical thinking individual. And those who never arrive at their full potential will only living life at a fraction of their capabilities when compared to the full breadth and scope that is to be had if an individual is robust and self sufficient.

We should seek togo beyond the confines of conformity and be our own very inherent authentic selves.

The individual needs to be open-minded enough to see when someone is trying to put them in a box, and braveenough to stop those that seek to halt their conscious awareness of issues,no matter who it is.

Only through achieving unbounded awareness of what one is capable of are individuals to free themselves from the confines of conformity and reimplement the original constitution of curiosity they were endowed with. Then, and only then, will individuals follow their inherent curiosities into new journeys, into a new life.

If individuals are to master themselves, if they are to be able to get in tune with their deepest self, they will need to be allowed to make their own mistakes – children and adults equally. If individuals are not allowed the opportunity to make mistakes and go through obstacles opportunities for growth, they will never master themselves.

The only way to breakaway into conscious creativity with curiosity is through the employment of imagination and ceaseless curiosity.

Via imagination, life becomes boundless – an ocean to be traveled upon. Thereafter, the embers of curiosity are reignited, and the ideas start to take place, possibilities ensue – wonder begins .

From there, an inquiring individual can go through life, searching, willing, and able to journey on their path in search for life’s hidden treasures, venturing towards their personal mysteries. Or they can remained stultified just as the system has made many become.

Curiosity or conformity.

Freedom, or societal subjugation.

The beauty of this conundrum is, it’s merely a choice. One way or another, everyone always decides.

[1] Mortimer J. Adler & Charles Van Doren, How To Read A Book, p. 264.
___________________________________________________________
This article is free and open source. You are encouraged and have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Zy Marquiez and TheBreakaway.wordpress.com.
___________________________________________________________About The Author:

His own personal blog is BreakawayConsciousnessBlog.wordpress.com where his personal work is shared, while TheBreakaway.wordpress.com serves as a media portal which mirrors vital information usually ignored by mainstream press, but still highly crucial to our individual understanding of various facets of the world.

Medicalxpress reports: “Researchers at the University of Zurich have identified the brain mechanism that governs decisions between honesty and self-interest. Using non-invasive brain stimulation, they could even increase honest behavior.”

In an experiment involving rolling dice, where cheating would increase volunteers’ earnings, “researchers applied transcranial direct current stimulation over a region in the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (rDLPFC). This noninvasive brain stimulation method makes brain cells more sensitive i.e., they are more likely to be active. When the researchers applied this stimulation during the task, participants were less likely to cheat.”

That result was only obtained with people who weighed moral choices. For volunteers who were wholly committed to cheating, the brain-manipulation had no effect.

This experiment reveals where brain research is going. Change the brain, change behavior. It’s a simple premise. It’s also a dangerous premise, because “greater good” is used as a justification for imposing ironclad behavior.

Of course, there are many people who can’t see consequences, who care nothing about free choice, who would favor this kind of societal control. They would say, “Increasing honesty is a good thing. It doesn’t matter how it’s done.”

In fact, these people would claim it’s extremely positive if people can’t act dishonestly, no matter how hard they try. So much the better.

Why not engineer civilization according to principles of good behavior? Lay down the principles, and then manipulate the brains of the population to obtain that desired result.

Everyone would “do good.” Except everyone would be a walking talking robot.

This distinction escapes a great many people. “What’s freedom anyway? What is this thing called free choice? Who cares?”

In fact, the medicalxpress article includes this gem: “the new [research] results raise the question to what degree honest behavior is based on biological predispositions, which may be crucial for jurisdiction. Michel Maréchal summarizes: ‘If breaches of honesty indeed represent an organic [brain] condition, our results question to what extent people can be made fully liable for their wrongdoings’.”

Why bother prosecuting cheats and liars and con artists and frauds? The perpetrators had no choice in the matter. They were controlled by their own brains. Instead, do away with the court system and treat these offenders. Change their brains. Then they’ll be honest. Substitute a good program for a defective program.

If you’re looking for a word to describe this heinous approach to human behavior and action, try technocracy. It posits the notion that society must be engineered by scientists. They define and plan the outcome, and they achieve it.

DARPA, the technical-research arm of the Pentagon, is leading the way in a mission to program the human brain.

What could go wrong?

In a word, everything.

For example, DARPA is deeply involved in developing the cortical modem, a little piece of equipment that costs about $10.

The gist? Insert proteins into neurons, and then beam photons into those proteins, thus creating image displays that bypass the normal channels of perception.

Virtual reality with no headset. The project is still in its early stages, but the direction is clear: give the “user” an image display beyond his ability to choose.

It’s touted as an overlay. The person, walking down the street, can still see the street, but he can also see what you give him, what you insert into his visual cortex. Of course, as the technology advances, you could take things further: block out physical reality and immerse the person in the virtual.

DARPA’s enthusiasm about this project, as usual, exceeds its current grasp, but its determination to succeed is quite genuine. And the money is there.

Here is a DARPA release (5/27/14) on the upcoming “brain-mapping” plan, in accordance with Obama’s initiative aimed at “preventing violence through improved mental health”—otherwise known as Clockwork Orange:

Translation: Reading myriad brain activities as they occur, and influencing that activity with various inputs/interferences. Drugs, electrical currents, nano-entities, etc.

Here’s another DARPA quote. This one lays out the foundation for the brain mission:

“…The program also aims to take advantage of neural plasticity, a feature of the brain by which the organ’s anatomy and physiology can alter over time to support normal brain function. Plasticity runs counter to previously held ideas that the adult brain is a ‘finished’ entity that can be statically mapped. Because of plasticity, researchers are optimistic that the brain can be trained or treated to restore normal functionality following injury or the onset of neuropsychological illness.”

Neural plasticity: the idea that brain activity is always changing and, therefore, can be externally molded by operators to fit a conception of “normalcy,” whatever that is, whatever “authorities” decide it is.

Chilling? Of course.

In the long run, this has nothing to do with “recovery from brain injuries.” That’s the cover story. The real goal is programming the brain to fit certain parameters of functioning.

“Plasticity is an intrinsic property of the human brain…The challenge we face is to learn enough about the mechanisms of plasticity to modulate them to achieve the best behavioral outcome for a given subject.”

“Modulate them.” “Achieve the best behavioral outcome.” Who defines that? Obviously, not the individual.

Notice the point of view: intervention is a given.

The brain will not be allowed to function on its own.

Behind all brain research lies that premise.

It’s no surprise that, in this technological age, the preferred method of mind control would involve an invasion by “experts.”

There are many, many brain-research professionals, and millions of laypeople, who believe that “intervention” is justified because it “corrects a chemical imbalance” in the brain. This is a myth.

Dr. Ronald Pies, the editor-in-chief emeritus of the Psychiatric Times, laid the myth to rest in the July 11, 2011, issue of the Times (“Psychiatry’s New Brain-Mind and the Legend of the ‘Chemical Imbalance’”) (paywall) with this staggering and stark admission:

What DARPA’s program entails is altering the fundamental relationship between you and your brain. That’s the bottom line.

The alteration will throw up roadblocks. It will shrink the sum of what your brain can do.

The ongoing DARPA brain-programming mission isn’t merely a two-year program or a five-year program. It’s permanent.

It’s the gateway to a controlled society.

And it’s perfectly understandable that this project would come from DARPA, which is an arm of the Pentagon, which is the foremost proponent of “military thought” in the world.

The military is interested in, and devoted to, the issuing of commands and obedience to those commands. Stimulus, response.

The military vision of society is: define the functions of each citizen, coordinate those functions to produce overall “harmony through obedience.”

Since this is the true definition of insanity, and since it is impossible to secure, over the long-term, enough voluntary cooperation to build such a civilization, the target is the brain.

Train the brain, train the collective.

Consider this analogy for you and your brain, and what the objective of programming is:

The rider and the horse. Previously, the rider took his horse far and wide. The rider went where he wanted to go. The horse was willing. But then something happened. The horse was altered, rebuilt. Now he could only move a mile in any direction from his starting point. At the boundary, he stopped. He turned around and returned home. That was the rule. The rider of course wanted to go farther. But the horse was no longer capable.

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

The War Of Art – Break Through The Blocks & Win Your Inner Creative Battles by Steven Pressfield is a very innovative way to look at the resistance individuals face when attempting to walk the path of a creatively conscious life.

Because resistance is something that we all face in one way shape or form [i.e. procrastination], this book is a book that stands to help everyone in their own unique way.

Pressfield minces no words in his apt definition of what holds creative individuals back: Resistance.

Resistance is what leaves most of us feeling like abject failures after we’ve lost multiple bouts with it. The paradox of this conundrum is that Resistance isn’t as untouchable as it might seem at first blush. Yes, Resistance is the paradise of procrastination on the creative path, it is the ultimate obstacle, the veritable Darth Vader. As such, resistance is the epitome of self-sabotage. But, therein lies the key to this curious conundrum: self.

Maraudering deep within our darkest realm, Resistance is the ultimate enemy which seeks to slay every one of our hopes, and cast limitations into each and every one of our dreams.

As Pressfield points out:

“Resistance is a bully. Resistance has no strength of its own; it’s power derives entirely from our fear of it. A bully will back down before the runtiest twerp who stands his ground.”[1]

In other words, if the percipient individual – guided by the self – is to overcome this ruthless opponent, they need to face it head on. As the saying goes, fear is False Evidence Appearing Real. Like the ego, it only grows when you feed it, so cutting Resistance of at the pass is crucial. And this is where this book shines.

The War of Art is split into 3 parts. In Part One, Pressfield shows a plethora of ways in which Resistance can be better understood. Thereafter, Book Two features ways that the individual can tackle resistance in myriad ways, while Book Three goes beyond into deeper ruminations on invoking the ever-elusive Muse. He also covers what separates amateurs from professionals, and an unorthodox – but refreshing – look at the artist and how the artist fits into the grand scheme of things. The book yields more, but those are the core concepts.

As the author aptly notes, if Resistance couldn’t be overcome, the great works that humanity has wouldn’t be available these days.

If you are an individual who runs head on into Resistance daily – and who doesn’t? – or needs a healthy dose of inspiration, this book will definitely help you handle those in spades. And if you seek to live a more creative life, whether by hobby or profession, then this is a must read.

Pressfield’s unorthodox approach to invoking the Muse is a breath of fresh air, and one that we can all relate too. In his own words:

“When we sit down each day and do our work, power concentrates around us. The Muse takes note of our dedication. She approves. We have earned favor in her sight. When we sit down and work, we become like a magnetized rod that attracts iron filings. Ideas come. Insights accrete.

“Just as Resistance has its seat in hell, so Creation has its home in heaven. And it’s not just a witness, but an eager and creative ally.”[2]

After reading the book, my only regret was that the book was not longer. That’s the sign of a good book.

If you want an active ally to accompany you in your personal battleground against Resistance and need a spark to light the tinder of action, get this book.
__________________________________________________________
Source:

[1] Steven Pressfield, The War Of Art, p. 99.
[2] Ibid., p. 108

___________________________________________________________
This article is free and open source. You are encouraged and have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Zy Marquiez and TheBreakaway.wordpress.com.
___________________________________________________________About The Author:

His own personal blog is BreakawayConsciousnessBlog.wordpress.com where his personal work is shared, while TheBreakaway.wordpress.com serves as a media portal which mirrors vital information usually ignored by mainstream press, but still highly crucial to our individual understanding of various facets of the world.

There are some people who hear the word CREATE and wake up, as if a new flashing music has begun.

This lone word makes them see something majestic and untamed and astonishing.

They feel the sound of a Niagara approaching.

They suddenly know why they are alive.

It happened to me one day in 1949 when I was 11 years old. I was boarding a bus in upstate New York for a full day’s ride back down into New York City. I was sitting by the window as the bus pulled out of a parking lot, and I opened the first page of Ray Bradbury’s Martian Chronicles, a perfect children’s book.

The word CREATE wasn’t on that first page, but I felt it. It sounded like a great bell in my ear, and I knew I was in a different world.

I’ve been writing about the creative life for some time. For me, this life is a far cry from the pallid oatmeal of “peace through avoidance.”

The creative life is not about slogans and systems. It is about EXPERIENCE.

It’s about diving in. It’s about a kind of transformation that shreds programming and gets down to the energy of the Fire.

Most people don’t want to travel to that grand arena because they have been trained like pets by some sector of this society to be good little girls and boys.

The truth is, if people want to live the creative existence, they have to be willing to destroy—and the main thing that awaits their destruction is their own illusions and their commitment to the World of Nice where doily power is the only power. Where that tired phrase, “the approval of others,” is the guiding precept and the stick of fear.

The creative life isn’t about little changes done in little penguin steps. It’s about putting your arms and your mind around Deep, Big, and Wide Desire. It’s about making that Desire come to life.

99% of the world has been trained like rats to adore systems. Give them a system and they’re ready to cuddle up and take it all in. If they have questions, or if they want to argue, it’s about how to tweak the system to make it a little better. And with every move they make, they put another blanket over the Fire Within.

Maybe you once saw something truly free that didn’t care about consequences, and it blew you away and turned on your soul’s electricity for an hour.

Maybe you’re sick and tired of bowing and scraping before a pedestal of nonsense.

CREATE is a word that should be oceanic. It should shake and blow apart the pillars of the smug boredom of the soul.

CREATE is about what the individual does when he is on fire and doesn’t care about concealing it. It’s about what the individual invents when he has thrown off the false front that is slowly strangling him.

CREATE is about the end of mindless postponement. It’s about what happens when you burn up the pretty and petty little obsessions. It’s about emerging from the empty suit and empty machine of society that goes around and around and sucks away the vital bloodstream.

People come to the brink, and then say, “I’m waiting for orders. I’m looking for a sign. I want the signal that it’s okay to proceed.”

People pretend they don’t know anything about imagination, about how “it operates” (as if it were a machine), about what it can do, about where it can go, about how it can take them into new territory. They feign ignorance.

“I want to stay the same, and I’ll do anything to maintain that.”

It’s a test of loyalty. Do you want to remain faithful to an idea that is just a small piece of what you can be, or do you want to take the greater adventure?

The propaganda machines of society relentlessly turn out images and messages that ultimately say: YOU MUST BELONG TO THE GROUP.

The formula is simple. Imagination transcends the status quo. Therefore, belong to the group and avoid the possibility of transformation.

Day after day after day, year after year, the media celebrate heroes. They inevitably interview these people to drag out of them the same old familiar stories. Have you EVER, even once, seen a hero who told an interviewer in no uncertain terms: “I got to where I am by denying the power of the group”?

Have you ever heard that kind of uncompromising statement?

I didn’t think so.

Why not?

Because it’s not part of the BELONGING PROGRAM, the program that society runs on to stay away from the transforming power of CREATION.

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

This month there were some serendipitous finds within the realm of books and reading that help feed the addict’s voracious hunger. The topics are wide in scope as they are intriguing, and have made for some thought-provoking reading when I’ve had the time.

The title says it all. This book details the connection between West Germany and South Africa, which is actually more disturbing than at first blush. The book also delineates which other countries were involved in this fiasco besides South Africa, and shows that Germany, who went on record never to create nuclear weapons post World War 2, became in fact a de-facto nuclear power. Then again, it shouldn’t be shocking considering that Germany’s attempted world domination in three previous instances.

Knowing that Bruce Lee is the epitome of Individuality, reading about him has been something that I’ve wanted to do for quite some time.

This book has been an inspiring read. Due to its format, the book can be read straight through, or just broken up into small pieces given that it’s not a book which builds on itself like most non-fiction books. For me the latter method has worked better.

Usually just slice off a few pages on a daily basis as the aphorisms give one much to ponder about in unexpected ways. Granted, some of the aphorisms are fairly straight forward, but there’s plenty of insights to be had if one remains open minded.

Wishing to learn more about the change culture American culture has gone through, this book felt like a natural pick considering it was mentioned in Susan Cain’s Quiet – The Power Of Introverts In A World That Can’t Stop Talking. In Quiet, Cain mentions how in her book Culture As History historian Susman covers the transition between the culture of character to a culture of personality. Seeing the results of this change in modern times, thought it prudent to go back in time and see where society began changing. Predictably, there was serious social engineering and propaganda taking place to bring this about. I am definitely looking forward to research this topic further down the line.

This book barely became known to me a few weeks ago. Being the book-addict that I am, initially, I told myself not to purchase this or any other book for that matter until catching up on some reading, but after about a week of pondering, I just couldn’t resist. This merits a shout out to all bodacious bloggers that feed that addiction! [If you got time and want to check out another fellow wordpress blogger on all things writing, click this link to check out Calliope Writing]

This book is like the Art Of War but doused with much inspiration and creativity. If there’s even one cell of creativity within you, ruminate upon getting this book.

This book covers society’s addiction to living at the vanguard at Warp 9. This book brings about quite a few different concerns, especially considering that a sizeable portion of society follows the actions noted in this book to a tee, particularly the younger generations. If you have young ones or know of anybody that might be plugged in to the matrix 24/7 so to speak, considering having them get this book. There’s a review of it here.

If you’ve ever wondered about where to start regarding the abstruse subjects of UFOs, START HERE. Even if you have, this book still offers a lot of value given the severity of the subject. Having read dozens of books on this subject, many books usually end up leaving the reader wanting more. Additionally, there really isn’t anything as comprehensive and detailed as this. The book is sourced to the hilt, is written in an easy to follow manner and considers a serious topic in a sobering and yet thought provoking way. There’s a review that was written on this here.

Having binged on many Tolkien books in February, and having heard from John Taylor Gatto that reading many biographies allows individuals the foresight to see things they might have not seen, thought getting this book would be a prudent choice. Haven’t delved into it, but hopefully am able to within the next month or so.

Along the same lines as the above, this book was purchased in order to brush up a bit on one of the Founding Fathers through the autobiographical lens. It’s definitely fascinating getting an inner look at one of the people responsible for helping create America. It helps put things into perspective in a way that history books lack. Review will come up soon.

This book was purchased with the intention to grow and learn as a writer. Being an autodidact and seeking to teach myself more on this lengthy subject, this seemed like a prudent place to start. BOY WAS IT WORTH IT. The book, although small in size, offers much knowledge to glean from it. If you’re a writer, you need to get this book for the tenets within it will undoubtedly help you grow. That said, there is a newer version of this book available. Found this out about a week after purchasing the first one, go figure! Given that it isn’t in my hands yet, I can’t vouch for it, YET, but once it gets here it will be read and reviewed in due time.

Why read a book similar to one just read? Great question. Because the 4th Edition of Elements of Style offered so much, I thought that if the new book followed through and offer even more information than the previous book, why not give it a gander? Might end up gifting the other one out to a friend, but either way, the investment will be well placed.

A veritable treasure trove of insights on virtue from countless angles, this book homes in on many of the core tents that used to get taught in society but don’t get taught as much nowadays. It seems like a great place to seek historical sources that showcase virtues within literature.

I reviewed this book a few weeks ago and predictably, it is being censored by Amazon, as per usual. If you want to read how to verify the censorship, read the next bracketed paragraph, and if not, just skip it for the synopsis.

[This can be verified simply. Click on the link above, scroll down to the reviews, and then take a look at the two pictures to the right of customers who took pictures of the book. The picture on the right under the name ZyPhReX, was the review done by me. As you can see from the picture, I gave the book 3 stars. Now, when you go back into the original book link, and click to check on all reviews that gave the book 3 stars, my review will NOT be showing whatsoever. My contention is that not only is my review critical of this book in sobering fashion, but it also outlines alternative books to this topic, and that’s something the consortium hates to hear. Regardless of the reason, the Book Review being censored is ludicrous since it follows all guidelines by Amazon, and the review is even shown under the picture. And no, this isn’t the first time and its happened and doubt it will be the last.]

My original thoughts were that since Peter Levenda is a top-notch researcher, of whom many books I own, and seeing as DeLonge seems to have a genuine curiosity on the subject, the book might be a good read. Boy was I wrong!

Although the book does feature intriguing information, the authors paint a picture that’s quite bleak of humanity, even using the parlance of “Cargo Cult” for humans and even go on to write about humanity as if wholly incapable, even there’s plethora of evidence showing otherwise.

Moreover, the authors take a very narrow point of views in explaining UFOs, which is quite detrimental. Not that beings from another place visiting the Earth is out of the question, far from it, but to use a one dimensional approach to explain a multi-dimensional issue served to make this book a catastrophe.

“… one particular point that was quite disconcerting is the fact that the authors take a unilateral point of view of making it seem like UFOs can only be explained by the alien mythos. While this is certainly one possibility, and one with some solid grounding, it is not the only one, and not by far. Dr. Joseph P. Farrell, Walter Bosley, and others have come up with an equally arguable case that argues for human ingenuity as one possible way to explain some UFOs.”

—

Lastly, a rather unexpected find was being able to get almost 20 National Geographic magazines, each for 10 cents at the library. I am sharing this in hopes for people to realize that sometimes at local libraries there are incredible deals if you happen to venture there at the right time.

That said, did any of you purchase any intriguing books recently? If so, what were they? I am always genuinely curious as to what other individuals read and find intriguing. A significant portion of what I choose to read is because of what other people have made known to me, either directly or indirectly, and this is my attempt to pay it forward.

Hope you are all well and have a great week.

___________________________________________________________
This article is free and open source. You are encouraged and have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Zy Marquiez and TheBreakaway.wordpress.com.
___________________________________________________________About The Author:

His own personal blog is BreakawayConsciousnessBlog.wordpress.com where his personal work is shared, while TheBreakaway.wordpress.com serves as a media portal which mirrors vital information usually ignored by mainstream press, but still highly crucial to our individual understanding of various facets of the world.

Featured within the February Book Haul, The Philosophy Of Tolkien – The Worldview Behind Lord Of The Rings by Peter Kreeft Ph.D. is quite an insightful book, in which Kreeft searches for philosophical gems of wisdom embedded by J.R.R. Tolkien within his magnum opus, Lord of the Rings.

Sprinkled generously throughout the book are extrapolations regarding Tolkien’s philosophical view, which are employed in answering some of the most vital and profound philosophical questions. The questions revolving around this regard: metaphysics (all-that is), philosophical theology (God), angelology (angels), cosmology (the cosmos), anthropology (man), epistemology (knowledge), philosophy of history, aesthetics (beauty), linguistics (philosophy of language), political philosophy and ethics.

Along with commentary about fifty of the greatest questions that have been ever asked regarding the topics above, the book features quite a few references to Lord Of The Rings as well as “three works of Tolkien’s that form the most authentic commendatory on it: his essay “On Fairy-Stories”, The Silmarillion, and The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien.”[1]

To help break down those fifty questions, Kreeft presents a variety of tools “for understanding each of the philosophical issues The Lord Of the Rings treats:

a. An explanation of the meaning and importance of the question;
b. a key quotation from The Lord of the Rings showing how Tolkien answered the question (many more passages are given in the Concordance to The Lord of the Rings in the Appendix);
c. a quotation from Tolkien’s other writings (usually a letter) that explains or comments on the them in The Lord of the Rings;
d. a quotation from C.S. Lewis, Tolkien’s closest friend, showing the same philosophy directly stated.”[2]

As in his other works, Kreeft does a reliable job of not only introducing the topic to the reader and helping the reader get to ‘know’ the ghost of J.R.R. Tolkien and everything he stood for, but he also supplants that with reasonable analysis in showing why each of the philosophical questions answered by this particular book are important.

Kreeft opts to begin the book with an apt introduction not only telling the reader what the he seeks to accomplish, but also detailing comprehensive insights that tackle many of the questions the reader might have. Kreeft even goes on to state the five dimensions that make any story great, and why and how The Lord of The Rings attains all those five dimensions.

Beyond that, and perhaps, more importantly, the following is the main reason why The Lord of the Rings has appealed so much to our culture:

“The Lord of the Rings heals our culture as well as our souls. It gives us the most rare and precious thing in modern literature: the heroic. It is a call to heroism; it is a horn like the horn of Rohan, which Merry received from Théoden and used to rouse the Hobbits of the Shire from their sheepish niceness and passivity to throw off their tyrants, first in their souls and then in their society.”[3]

And in an age where authoritarianism, tyranny and fascism are becoming more mainstream, a book like this may perhaps help individuals rise out of their doldrums and help them become cognizant of the freedoms they are so quickly losing. That’s a whole different story, though.

Another great strength of this book is that it shows why both philosophy and literature are joined at the hip. This is because:

“They [philosophy and literature] can work like two lenses of a pair of binoculars. Philosophy argues abstractly. Literature argues too – it persuades, it changes the reader – but concretely. Philosophy says truth, literature shows truth.”[4]

Finally, this book also features a Bibliography, as well as an Appendix that feature countless references which address the philosophy of Tolkien.

Whether you’re searching for an engaging book that goes into the deeper philosophical outlook of The Lord of the Rings, or perhaps a book that might serve as an introduction to philosophy, or simply a research tool that features a lot of substance regarding L.O.T.R. and Tolkien’s philosophy, ruminate upon getting this book, for it does all that, and more.

His own personal blog is BreakawayConsciousnessBlog.wordpress.com where his personal work is shared, while TheBreakaway.wordpress.com serves as a media portal which mirrors vital information usually ignored by mainstream press, but still highly crucial to our individual understanding of various facets of the world.

Because in art we can see our visions. We can see ideals and archetypes. These fictional characters have the energy we strive for.

When Ayn Rand, the author of The Fountainhead (1943), was asked whether Howard Roark, the hero of her novel, could exist in real life, she answered, with annoyance, “Of course.”

Her implication was: don’t you have the desire to discover your own highest ideals and live them out?

Roark is an architect who creates buildings no one has imagined before. His refusal to compromise his vision is legendary. He suffers deprivation and poverty and rejection with an astonishing amount of indifference. He is the epitome of the creative individual living in a collective world.

For reasons no one can discover (must there always be reasons?), Roark has freed himself from The Group. Perhaps he was born free.

Roark’s hidden nemesis is a little man named Ellsworth Toohey, an architecture columnist for a New York newspaper, who is quietly building a consensus that has, as its ultimate goal, the destruction of all thought and action by the individual for the individual.

But Roark, in his personality, spirit and force, is The Exception to the Rule.

He stands as a force that transcends the complication of Need and, instead, is pure Desire.

Desire, plus intelligence, plus creative power.

Whatever dross may once have existed in Roark’s character has been burned away.

Rand allows us to see that society encourages everything an individual does and thinks that keeps him from being self-sufficient. That is what society, in its advanced stage of dissolution, is for.

Therefore, as Roark moves through space and time, he ignites in others, without trying to, all the emotions that signal their self-betrayal: shame, fear, disgust, resentment, hatred.

Their dedication to endless compromise remains intact. They tell themselves whatever stories they need to, in order to protect their second-hand existences.

They enact the range of feelings that allow for entombment in The Group.

These days, when people talk about “self-improvement,” they unerringly manage to avoid the starkness of these matters. And this is why the so-called “helping professions” fail.

Those who own the systems that run the world enforce, celebrate, champion, and fund life-by-need.

Drug dealer and his addicts—that’s the societal model.

But then, what of community? What of family? These are often thrown in the face of The Fountainhead as accusations, as if Rand wants to stamp them out and leave them in the dust.

The obvious answer is, which community, which family? Are the individuals intact, or are they sacrificing themselves to an “ideal” of diminishing their power?

The Matrix has an entrance, a gate on which is transcribed, “Reduce your vision and surrender your separate power.”

Yes, “separate.” A word that is now considered taboo. “Separate” was what we defended before we “understood” that the only salvation was attained in “coming together” and melting down.

We can even find this Melt in physics. The latest version of coming together is the interpretation placed on quantum entanglement, in which atoms light years apart react simultaneously from a stimulus placed on either atom. We are supposed to believe that the whole universe is arranged as a spontaneously reacting Whole, with no part distinct from another. And this is confirmation that the Collective is the preferred pattern of life in every venue. In other words, political collectivism mirrors cosmic collectivism.

Are you sensing something strange here? You should be.

Once upon a time, in a document called the Constitution, separateness was considered a key element. There was separation of church and state. There was separation of the rights of an individual from what the state could arbitrarily do to the individual. There was separation among the three branches of federal government, a plan enacted to limit overall federal power. There was separation of the enumerated powers of the federal government from the far more numerous powers of the states.

DISTINCTIONS that created separation were absolutely necessary. Making and abiding by such distinctions were made possible by minds that could think, minds that could utilize logic—rather than minds that boiled down in a puddle of gray sameness.

Roark is shown to us as a man who stands separate from the mass, the crowd, the mob, the group, the collective, the majority, the minority. He isn’t seeking permission or approval or praise or consensus for his work, his art, his buildings, his creations.

The stunning intensity of his Desire isn’t watered down by a Need to be drawn into what the group wants or accepts or believes in.

The hallmark of The Matrix is a collective lens, through which the individual is supposed to view his life, his work, and the world.

“I see what everybody sees, and they see what I see, and we all see together.”

Talk about fiction. The collective lens is built, step by step, piece by piece, along a path of self-betrayal and corruption.

To speak about individual freedom while living and seeing and thinking through the collective lens is a contradiction and impossibility of titanic proportions.

“I have the inalienable right to see things as others see them. To melt down what might, in other circumstances, be my Separate Vision. To melt it down for the sake of the Whole. So that I might better serve others.”

Well, thank you for your sacrifice. I’m sure a gold star is waiting for you in some cosmic classroom. Now, if we all sacrifice all the time, someday soon we will all be invisible. We will all live in the great mouth of a great nothing. No one will have power. No one will be free. But we will speak as if we are free.

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Amidst the backdrop of society, there is a bifurcation taking place in many forms, and for many reasons. Division abounds in certain areas, and quite more trenchantly than ever before. My contention for this division is that, in part, it’s being lead by an ignorance of many issues. This ignorance stems from the deliberate dumbing down of society that’s been taking place for nigh a century. People weren’t always so unaware, but that matters not in this instance. The question is: if people ARE being dumbed down, and they certainly are as recent evidence suggests, what CAN a person do about it? It’s a sage question, and there are many answers to that.

How one answers that above question depends on what type of individual a person is. Regardless, though, the point is that there are options out there for individuals to educate themselves. We have begun cataloging some of these on this very blog, and will continue to do so as long as the blog runs as a service to humanity and individuals who value education.

Either way, when moving forward through life, there comes a time where the individual reaches an obstacle on a road, such as the possible instance above. The individual, upon arriving at the fork in the road, has two choices to make. The individual may ponder each choice at length in order to find out what suits them. But what if neither choice suits that individual?

Perhaps there’s another option. Perhaps, the individual, upon arriving at the fork and the road will realize that there aren’t only two options, even though it seems there’s only two options.

The individual trailblazer will not merely restrict themselves to what others have done before, to merely walk paths paved before them. The individual trailblazer will seek to blaze a trail – find new paths, create new paths. Exploring life to the fullest, living outside of the box with no concept of a box is the essence of this individual. And their creative consciousness is how they unleash this very essence.

Only a trailblazer can create a new path from what seems strewn in obstacles. And only you can create something so unique nobody has ever done it before.

Perhaps you are on that very path because only you can walk it.

This idea is best encapsulated in the following statement by philosopher, writer, and essayist Ralph Waldo Emerson:

“Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.”
– Ralph Waldo Emerson.

That statement is the very definition of the road less traveled, because nobody could have ever traveled it if you’re the first one blazing a trail.

Next time you arrive at a fork in the road, and there seems to be only two paths, ruminate deeply. Are there only two paths? Or is it only a mirage?

Perhaps, instead of turning right or turning left on the fork in the road, you notice that there is another possibility that you can create between both paths and you go straight.

Sometimes, what seems like an obstacle is merely a waypoint on your journey. Don’t be afraid to test the waters, don’t be afraid to venture into the unknown. The world today is what it is because of people who went beyond previously thought of limits and created nigh everything we know of today.

But to spawn resounding change we must make berth into the future, we must walk our own path.

Thought obstacles may be present, though the path may harbor darkness and you may be unable to see the path, make sure to keep your inner fire going, keep that torch going. Don’t be afraid to use your very essence, your very goodness, your light, to cast a new road.

Always remember, a path paved in darkness can be followed by light, but a path paved in light cannot be followed by darkness.

Blaze a trail that shines forever and blazes into eternity.
___________________________________________________________
This article is free and open source. You are encouraged and have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Zy Marquiez and TheBreakaway.wordpress.com.
___________________________________________________________About The Author:

His own personal blog is BreakawayConsciousnessBlog.wordpress.com where his personal work is shared, while TheBreakaway.wordpress.com serves as a media portal which mirrors vital information usually ignored by mainstream press, but still highly crucial to our individual understanding of various facets of the world.

“Why carry the burden of creating something and then having to stand for it and be proud of it? Why think and imagine and create your own way into the future of your most profound vision? Why bother? And why, therefore, allow others to do so for themselves and cause disordered, disharmonious ripples in the great silent lake of humanity? Pull them down. Make them equal. Make them empty.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

I wrote the following article five years ago. Since then, I’ve had a chance to set down a few more remarks about Ayn Rand. Here they are:

The one glaring problem in her work is the overall effect of her hammering mercilessly on behalf of freedom and the individual—after 400 pages, her prose takes on a programmatic aspect. It grips the reader with iron. The moral imperative to be free replaces the exhilaration of being free.

On the other hand, she obviously wrote her two great novels in the middle of a feverish exaltation. Every page burned. Most characters went down in flames. A few rose into the sky. She knew she was up against the most powerful forces of society, and she was not going to compromise or relent one inch. She fully intended to destroy collectivism at its root. On the basis of that decision, she refused to suspend her attack, even for a moment.

Most people who brush up against her work can’t stop to consider the depth of her admiration for the independent and powerful and creative individual, or the nature of her aversion to the collectivist who can only borrow from such individuals—and then distort and undermine what they have misappropriated.

She means to be extreme. It is no accident. With no apologies, she splits the world down the middle. In her own way, she is an ultimate riverboat gambler. She shoves in all her chips on the self-appointed task of illuminating the great dichotomy of human history and modern life: the I versus the WE.

On a personal level, she possessed enormous ambition, and she wrote her two novels to achieve deserved recognition. Again, no apologies. She knew she and her work would be attacked by numerous critics who didn’t themselves own a tiny fragment of her talent. So be it.

To say she revealed “a thorny personality” in her relationships would constitute a vast understatement. In her later years, she no doubt contributed to bringing the house down on her head. But by then, her work was over. She stood behind it. She had achieved what she set out to create.

“…can be called a novel only by devaluing the term.”
The National Review, on Atlas Shrugged

“[The] creative faculty cannot be given or received, shared or borrowed. It belongs to single, individual men.”
Howard Roark, The Fountainhead

When people perceive their society is being infiltrated and taken over by collectivism, how should they respond? What is their ultimate fuel in the battle for liberty?

What do they resurrect as the ideal that is being scorched by collectivism?

Yes the Constitution, yes the Bill of Rights, yes the Republic. But what were those documents and that form of government there for in the first place? What WAS the great ideal that lay behind them?

And if very few people can recall the ideal or understand it, what then?

The ideal was and is THE INDIVIDUAL.

But not just the individual.

The FREE INDIVIDUAL.

But not just the free individual.

The FREE AND POWERFUL INDIVIDUAL.

Which is why I’m writing about Ayn Rand.

To grasp her Promethean effort and accomplishment, you have to read her books at least several times, because your own reactions and responses will change. She was attempting to dig a whole civilization out from its smug certainty about the limits of freedom, from its compulsion to borrow and steal worn-out ideas.

I write this because the matrix of modern life has no solution without a frontal exposure of the meaning and reality and sensation and emotion and mind and imagination of INDIVIDUAL POWER.

Ayn Rand, in her unique way, climbed the mountain of power and told about the vista that was then in her sights. She exercised no caution. She knew the consequences would be extraordinary.

The characters she creates who embody power are electric. You experience them beyond mere fiddle-faddle with symbols.

Rand wrote two novels that still reverberate in the minds of millions of people: The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.

The books have inspired unalloyed adoration and hatred. They are received as a magnificent tonic or a dose of poison.

Readers who hate Rand’s work hate her for daring to present the power of an individual in full force.

Rand’s major heroes, Howard Roark and John Galt, are artists. Creators. They bow before no one and nothing. They invent. They decide. They imagine. They refuse to compromise. They leave the group and the committee and the bureaucracy and the collective behind them in the dust.

Society is ever more, over time, a mass concept. Society’s leaders, through illegal dictum, deception, and force, define a space in which all life is supposed to occur. That is the “safe zone.” Within it, a person may act with impunity. Outside that space, protection is removed. The protection racket no long applies.

Once a controller owns a space in which others live, he can alter it. He can make it smaller and smaller. He can flood it with caterwauling about “the greatest good for the greatest number,” the slogan of the mob. He can pretend to elevate the mob to the status of a legitimate “democratic majority” who are running things. He can con whole populations.

On the other hand, we are supposed to believe that individual power is a taboo because men like Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon, Attila, and Alexander once lived. That is the proof. We are supposed to believe individual power is always and everywhere the expression of dominance over others and nothing more.

If we only take into consideration “what is best for everybody,” we will see our way out of the morass. That’s what we’re told.

Civilizations are being made more puerile because it is children who are most vulnerable to the “greatest good for all” maxim. It is children who can be suckered into that ideal overnight. And those adults who buy the maxim do, in fact, revert back in the direction of being children.

At this late date, significant numbers of people are waking up to the fact that “greatest good” is being managed and manipulated by new Stalins and Hitlers, who care about humanity in the same way that a bulldozer cares about the side of a building.

Ayn Rand, after growing up in the USSR, knew something about the paradise of the common man. She saw it play out. She could eventually look back and see, with certainty, that writing her two novels in the Soviet Union would have cost her her life.

Rand refused to compromise her exaltation of individual power.

But she was acutely aware of the nature of compromisers. Such characters, brilliantly and mercilessly drawn, are there in her novels, in the full bloom of decay. Peter Keating, the pathetic and agonized hack; Guy Francon, Keating’s boss, a socially connected panderer and promoter of hacks; Jim Taggart, moral coward in extremis; Ellsworth Toohey, prime philosopher of the mob impulse; Robert Sadler, the scientist who sold his soul.

Around us today, we see growing numbers of these very types, peddling their phony idealism over and over. Among them, Barack Obama, promoting class warfare, dependence on government as the source of survival, generalized pretended hatred of the rich, and a phony empty “we are all together” sing-song collective mysticism.

Again, keep in mind that Rand’s two major heroes, Howard Roark and John Galt, were artists. This was no accident. This was the thrust of her main assault. The artist is always, by example, showing the lie of the collective. The artist begins with the assumption that consensus reality is not final. The artist is not satisfied to accommodate himself to What Already Exists.

The dark opposite of that was once told to me by a retired propaganda operative, Ellis Medavoy (pseudonym), who freelanced for several elite non-profit foundations:

“What do you think my colleagues and I were doing all those years? What was our purpose? To repudiate the singular in favor of the general. And what does that boil down to? Eradicating the concept of the individual human being. Replacing it with the mass. The mass doesn’t think. There is no such thing as mass thought. There is only mass impulse. And we could administer that. We could move it around like a piece on a board. You see, you don’t hypnotize a person into some deeper region of himself. You hypnotize him OUT of himself into a fiction called The Group…”

Rand was attacking a mass and a collective that had burrowed its way into every corner of life on the planet. If you were going to go to war against THAT, you needed to be fully armed. And she was.

Rand was also prepared to elucidate the physical, mental, and emotional DEPTH of her heroes’ commitment to their own choices, their own work, their own creations. She wasn’t merely dipping her toe in the water of that ocean.

Howard Roark, her protagonist of The Fountainhead, remarks:

“And here man faces his basic alternative: he can survive in only one of two ways—by the independent work of his own mind or as a parasite fed by the minds of others. The creator originates. The parasite borrows…”

Parasites don’t want anyone to stand out from the group, the swamp. The presence of someone who is so separate from them could trigger alarm bells and confirm their deepest fear:

An individual with power and his own singular creative vision can exist.

Parasites want you to believe you’re just a drop of water in the great ocean, and once you attain “higher consciousness” you’ll give in and float in the sea, and you’ll offload that oh-so primitive concept of yourself as Self. You’ll be One with all the other undifferentiated drops of water.

In their ritual of joining, people are awarded a mantrum: “I’M NOT VERY MUCH.”

Just that little phrase can open the door into the collective.

In The Fountainhead, architect Peter Keating utilized a second assertion as well:

“I AM GREAT BECAUSE OTHER PEOPLE THINK SO.”

Keating, the social grasper, finds acceptance from people of influence. They welcome him and reward him with architectural commissions because, well, they think they are supposed to; after all, his name has been bandied about by “those who should know Quality.”

It’s a world in which no standards apply except the opinions of people who carry weight.

And Peter is conventionally handsome, he’s the golden boy, he’s quick, he can design buildings that look like other buildings, he can work with others, he can look like he’s enjoying life, he’s good at parties, he’s congenial.

On what other basis should rewards be handed out? What else exists?

Unfortunately and fatally, Keating knows the real answer to that question, since he’s the boyhood friend of Howard Roark, the architect who does have a singular and astonishing vision, who stands beyond the crowd without trying.

Keating returns to Roark time after time; to insult Roark, to beg him for help, to be in the presence of a Force and breathe clean air.

Not determined enough to be himself, but still possessed of a shred of conscience, Keating is caught in the middle, between the man of vision and power (Roark) and new friends who offer him “the glittering world”—and the grips of this vise are unrelenting.

Adulation, money, success, fame, acceptance…Keating is given all these things, and still he destroys himself.

Here is why The Fountainhead provoked such rage from the self-styled elite: they’re committed to live on an insider’s rotting feast of mutual admiration and support, and in Keating they see themselves reflected with a clarity they’d assumed was impossible to construct. But there it is.

The very people who launched attack after attack at Rand, for “pawning off such preposterous characters as real,” were boiling inside, as they viewed themselves on the screen of her imagination: characters riddled with compromise, bloated with pretension, bereft of integrity.

Keating is eventually reduced to an abject yearning: would that his life had been lived differently, better—yet at the same time he maintains a dedication to hating that better life he might have had. He’s consumed by the contradiction. He sees his own career fall apart, while Roark’s ascends. The tables are turned. Keating has administered a poison to his own psyche, and the results are all too visibly repellent.

The Keatings of this world carry water for their masters, who in turn find bigger and better manipulators to serve. It’s a cacophony of madness, envy, and immolation posing as success.

The world does not want to watch itself through the eyes of Ayn Rand. It does not want to see the juggernaut of the drama playing out, because, as with Keating, it is too revealing. And yet Rand has been accused, over and over, of being an author of cartoon personae!

She elevates characters and destroys other characters. She picks and chooses according to her own standards and ideals. She never wavers. She passes judgment. She differentiates vividly between the forces and decisions that advance life and those that squash it.

Again and again, she comes back to the fulcrum: the featureless consensus versus unique individual creative power.

Creative power isn’t a shared or borrowed quality. One person doesn’t live in the shadow of another. The creator finds his own way, and if that weren’t the case, there would be no basis for life.

We are supposed to think existence by committee is a viable concept. This is a surpassing fairy tale that assumes the proportions of a cosmic joke.

For those whose minds are already weak, in disarray, unformed, the substitution of the collective for the individual is acceptable. It’s, in fact, rather interesting. It has the kick of novelty. And the strength of hypnotic trance.

The strategy is obliquely described in The Fountainhead by Ellsworth Toohey, a newspaper columnist and philosopher of the collective, a little man who is covertly and diabolically assembling a massive following:

“…if I sold them the idea that you [an ordinary playwright] are just as great as Ibsen—pretty soon they wouldn’t be able to tell the difference…then it wouldn’t matter what they went to see at all. Then nothing would matter—neither the writers nor those for whom they write.”

Reduction to absurdity. An overall grayness called equality.

If the public is told the owner of a business didn’t create that business, but instead the public sector, the collective did, and if this theme is pushed and emphasized by others, eventually the absurd notion will take hold. Then it won’t matter what is done to the independent individual, because he was never really there at all in the first place. He was just an invisible nonentity.

Contrast this treatment of the individual with the stand that Howard Roark takes during his climactic trial, at the end of The Fountainhead:

“But the mind is an attribute of the individual. There is no such thing as a collective brain. There is no such thing as a collective thought.”

“We inherit the products of the thoughts of other men. We inherit the wheel. We make the cart. The cart becomes an automobile. The automobile becomes an airplane…The moving force is the creative faculty which takes product as material, uses it and originates the next step. This creative faculty cannot be given or received, shared or borrowed. It belongs to single, individual men. That which it creates is the property of the creator.”

“Yet we are taught to admire the second-hander who dispenses gifts he has not produced above the man who made the gifts possible.”

We are now in an age where EVERYTHING BELONGS TO EVERYBODY.

Obama is the latest in a line of demagogues who fully intend to reverse the course of history. That timeline shows us the heroic struggle to replace WE with I.

From the earliest days of our planet, since its habitation by humans, the tribe and the clan and the priest class and the monarchy, all claiming divine right, have enforced the WE. Finally, the I, which was always there, emerged fully enough to overthrow the criminals and murderers who were restraining the individual.

But now we are being pulled back into the primitive swamp of the past, through the systematic application of a pseudo-philosophy. The I is turning back into the WE.

To people who carry advanced technological devices around with them wherever they go, which give…

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

“Above all, the Globalist elite considers the human being is nothing more than a biological machine—a machine that is badly programmed, desperately in need of a complete overhaul and restructuring at the level of mind.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Over the years, I have written much about Globalism. During the 2016 US presidential election, Donald Trump spoke of it often, and in derogatory terms. He brought back, for the public, the concept, which had receded from press coverage. You could say he let the cat out of the bag.

So here I thought I would publish, in a series, some of the important material I’ve written on the subject. People need to be aware of the elite movement called Globalism and its aims and strategies.

ONE: “Over the weekend, thousands of protesters across multiple countries condemned impending [Globalist] trade deals promoted by governments and their corporate partners. Though the protests received little coverage from mainstream media, they stretched from Paris to Warsaw.” (Carey Wedler, Blacklisted News, 10/19/16)

Now that the election is over, it’s important to review a few facts about Globalism. It was a centerpiece of controversy during the run-up to the vote.

Globalism isn’t just an abstract word or idea. It gives survival to some, and tries to take it away from others. It lights on populations like a storm of locusts. It undermines jobs and work. It steals. It is designed to make chaos.

Globalism is based on the elite conviction that “the best people” should rule over everyone else for the greater good. “We’re not trying to do harm. We’re spreading the wealth.”

We can find the seeds of Globalism in Plato and his ancient dialogue called The Republic. Plato made his final philosophic stand on that work. Step by step, he establishes that The Good, which is highest concept in the universe, which exists in a realm of “pure ideas” apart from the daily round of existence, must be accessed and understood, if society is to meet up with its best destiny.

But, naturally, not all people are able to fathom The Good or translate it into action here in this human realm. Only the few can grasp it—and they must rise to the top and rule.

So, in the end, there is a fascist paradise. It rebuffs all attempts at dilution.

This is how Plato, the humane philosopher, the champion of the individual and freedom and independent thought, painted himself into a terrible corner. But never mind. Down through the centuries, “the wisest of men” have taken their cue from him and built nations and civilizations based on their (self-serving) version of The Good.

And in the process, they have used propagandists to convince populations that rule from above is only carried out as altruistic service…

When a system has been devised, planned, launched, and maintained by criminals to undermine a nation, they are naturally going to defend it by saying: “It’s good for everyone AND THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO MANAGE HUMAN AFFAIRS. BESIDES, WE CAN’T STOP IT NOW. THAT WOULD CAUSE WIDESPREAD CHAOS.”

In exactly the same way, a massive prison housing nothing but innocent people would superficially look like “chaos,” if the airtight security system were turned off.

The truth about the Globalist prison is simple. The underlying operation takes jobs away from America, in this instance, and sends them to Third World hell holes, where the same products are manufactured by the same companies, for pennies, using slave workers who labor in toxic environmental conditions that destroy their health.

Isn’t that easy to understand?

The American companies in those hell holes then sell the products back to Americans without paying taxes, tariffs, or penalties of any kind. The defenders of Globalism claim selling back the products cheaply is good for the American consumer. This is a lie, because many of those consumers no longer have jobs. Or they work at much lower wages than they used to, because the companies they worked for left America and went to the hell holes.

All in all, this arrangement is obviously designed to torpedo the national economy. It’s not an accident. It’s not an unintended consequence. The Globalists may be criminals, but they aren’t stupid criminals.

But what about the US companies who left America and set up shop overseas? Can’t they read the handwriting on the wall? Can’t they realize their base of consumers in the US is shrinking?

The companies are, in fact, stupid. They’re betting on short-term success vs. long-term collapse, and they’re going to lose. They plunge ahead with their eyes closed—because they can’t bring themselves to believe that the system they’re part of could have been fashioned with ultimate failure in mind.

The anti-Globalism movement is MUCH bigger than Trump, so no matter what you think of him, whether you believe in his honesty or not, the ideas he is bringing forward are having an immense impact on the populace—because the populace has figured out the Globalist game. They see and feel the destruction. They see and feel what is happening to jobs. Their jobs. They see the brutal reality, and they want no part of it.

They want America to endure. They want America to prosper. They want a free market. They don’t want their country reduced to Third World status.

All the politically correct humanitarian lingo in the universe is not going to change these basic realities. Globalism—the export of jobs, the rapid expansion of the Welfare State, the launching of senseless wars to pave the way for corporate plunder, the immigrant-flood through open borders—is a nation killer. It’s built to be a killer.

Decimating nations is an intentional precursor to ruling the planet from above by the Globalists-in-charge. “What we destroy we will resurrect on our own terms.”

No nation on Earth has a pure and clean history. But no nation deserves to be leveled and destroyed. The founding ideas of the original American Republic were and are the best ideas about government ever forwarded in human history. They imply:

Severely limited federal power. Free individuals. Independent individuals. Individuals who choose their own dreams and destinies. Individuals who work to achieve those dreams.

The so-called liberal press, and the academic institutions of America, have sold out completely. They are on board with what they can see of the Globalist agenda. The press will never challenge that agenda. They are grotesque cowards of the first order.

I have met some of them during my 30-plus years of working as a reporter. Behind their perfumed fronts, they give off a stench.

I created this website 15 years ago, in part, to expose Globalism in its various aspects, as a deep sickness of elites; Globalism must be cut off and shut down.

America is America. For the most part, its people are decent. Their leaders have betrayed them time and time again, without a second thought, without a shred of remorse.

The so-called populist movement which is growing by leaps and bounds, which got its legs under it with Ron Paul, must not come to a halt, no matter who sits in the White House, not matter what he does.

The future is now.

TWO: Globalist corporations are blind in the face of doom.

People don’t fully appreciate the capacity of mega-corporations. The 300 largest companies account for roughly 25% of all international trade.

And, even more startling, these behemoths are operating their production lines at half-strength. Why? Because only 1.5 billion people in the world have enough money to rate as true consumers.

So these corporations, which are the leading lights of the Globalist agenda, are looking and hoping for many more customers.

Meanwhile, Rockefeller Globalists are hyping the pseudoscience of manmade warming, in order to convince nations to cut their energy production. That plan, of course, would further erode the ability of mega-corporations to find new consumers. Indeed, Globalists are all for wrecking economies and deepening poverty—aims which infect the lifeblood of corporations.

We are looking at a huge crack—a contradiction—in the very foundation of the Globalism.

And if you want to take this farther, the notion of radical depopulation across the planet would do even graver harm to corporate dreams and ambitions. Far fewer consumers.

There are wild and woolly solutions. For example, provide a basic income to every human on Earth; or make governments the sole payer to corporations for their products, which are then dispensed to the population in a mad universal welfare scheme. In either case, you would have a new currency system. Governments would openly and blandly create money out of thin air, as needed, to fund these harebrained schemes. Governments already invent money, but this would be occurring on a far larger scale, and without any pretense of legitimacy.

Given the propensity of governments to run their programs according to dizzyingly incompetent guidelines, I see no way the mega-corporations would welcome these “innovations.”

In short, the corporations are buying a pie-in-the-sky con. They insist on believing the favors and concocted advantages the Globalists are offering them in the marketplace are wonderful; but in fact, the long-term situation is a no-win. It’s a narrowing road, and a crack-up is coming.

Globalists are shrinking the worldwide consumer base. They want a chaos-ridden dystopia, which they will control with an iron hand.

In that scenario, the mega-corporations will also shrink to shadows of their former selves. Their usefulness will rapidly decay.

Memo to CEOs: why don’t you try waking up?

Your whole elite movement is a walking contradiction, and you’re on the downside.

Why don’t these CEOs awaken? Because their short-term greed exceeds their long-term vision. For them, it’s an easier way to live. Take the money and run.

THREE: “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” David Rockefeller, Memoirs, 2003

The man who wrote those words represents a family that has dominated banking, oil, modern medicine, behind-the-scenes politics, and powerhouses of Globalism (e.g., the Council on Foreign Relations) for a century.

Globalism asserts that no nation can be independent from “the family” of other nations, as if it were a matter of fact beyond dispute. A nation claiming its sovereignty thus becomes a lunatic traitor to the natural order of things.

What really binds nations to one another is propaganda, and treaties which are based on the same propaganda, resulting in (temporary) engorged super-profits for mega-corporations.

Globalism is a secular piece of messianic hype. A Disneyesque altruism is the prow of the ship. Spend 10 minutes educating any street hustler on Globalist principles, and he would recognize it as a standard con.

Obama’s warning to the Brits, that their withdrawing from the Globalist European Union would put them at the back of the line in negotiating a separate trade treaty with the United States, was sheer fiction.

Britain, or any nation, that has goods to sell and a desire to buy will find trade partners. An agreement could be scratched out on a napkin over dinner.

Impending trade deals like the TPP and TTIP are thousands of pages and take so long to negotiate, because the heavy hitters at the table are looking for new ingenious ways to cut and paste the world into larger profits for themselves.

Globalism, hiding behind thousands of academic analyses, picks up jobs from one nation, where wages are reasonable and working conditions are tolerable, and dumps them in hell holes where wages are nearly invisible and conditions are poisonous. It’s that simple, and any moron could see how the industrial nations like the US would suffer…if by nations we meant people.

Instead of criminal corporations and criminal investors.

But all this is layered over with “share and care” sop.

The United States government could repeal the NAFTA, CAFTA, and GATT trade treaties tomorrow, and throw current TPP and TTIP negotiating documents out the window…and all would be well. Better.

Much better.

For instance, without NAFTA, US producers wouldn’t have been able to flood Mexico with cheap corn, throwing 1.5 million Mexican corn farmers into bankruptcy, leading many of them to cross the border and come to the US to find work.

No US President since Nixon has disturbed the march of Globalist “free trade.” All Presidents since then have been on board with the Rockefeller plan. And the US economy—which is to say, jobs—has thus faltered. The 2008 financial crash was only one factor in the decline. The promise of cheap imports for sale in the US—the justification for free trade—doesn’t work when people here have no jobs and no purchasing power.

Major media, fronting for free-trade, have panicked over Donald Trump’s claim that he’ll reject Globalism. They would have panicked over Bernie Sander’s similar promise, if they thought he had any chance of defeating Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. The media have their orders from on high—the deck is stacked, the cards were dealt long ago.

Hillary Clinton’s pathetic promises about creating jobs reveal nothing of substance. Small tax breaks for small businesses that “share profits with employees,” the “removal of government red tape,” “funding breakthroughs in scientific and medical research,” “expanding job training opportunities”—the truth is, her basic method for stimulating the economy has always been: find a war, any war, and fight it.

FOUR: From GlobalisationGuide.org: “What does globalization mean to Australia?”

“Australian corporations participate in the oppression of workers and peasants in poor countries in Asia. Australian mining and forestry companies are involved in extracting wealth from countries such as Papua New Guinea, Irian Jaya and Indonesia, sometimes relying on military support to suppress local opposition.”

“The Australian support for trade liberalisation, particularly in agriculture, has been used to open up markets in poor countries where Australia’s commodity exports put local subsistence farmers out of work.”

“Australia has opened its own markets to goods made in countries that allow child labour, or forbid the formation of free trade unions.”

“The Australian government has opposed efforts to include environmental and labour protection clauses in World Trade Organisation agreements.”

“Australia should support reform of the WTO to make it more equitable for poor nations of the world.”

“Australia places few restrictions on the operations of transnational organisations, which take wealth from…[our] country, and are not managed in the interests of Australia.”

FIVE: This is a bombshell. It’s a crucial piece of history that has been ignored by mass media.

I’ve published this interview before. Here I want to make new comments.

First of all, David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission was born in 1973, in part because the Globalist plan to ensure “free trade” (no tariffs paid by predatory mega-corporations) had run into a glitch.

That glitch was President Richard Nixon. He began laying tariffs on certain goods imported into the US, in order to level the playing field and protect American companies. Nixon, a substantial crook in other respects, went off-script in this case and actually started a movement to reject the Globalist vision.

After Nixon’s ouster from the White House, Gerald Ford became president, and he chose David’s brother, Nelson Rockefeller as his vice-president. It was a sign Globalism and free trade were back on track.

But David Rockefeller and his sidekick, Brzezinski, wanted more. They wanted a man in the White House whom they’d created from scratch.

That man was a peanut farmer no one had ever heard of: Jimmy Carter.

Through their media connections, David and Brzezinski vaulted Carter into the spotlight. He won the Democratic nomination (1976), spread a syrupy message of love and coming together after the Watergate debacle, and soon he was ensconced in the Oval Office.

Flash forward to 1978, the second year of Carter’s presidency. An interview took place.

It’s a close-up snap shot of a remarkable moment. It’s a through-the-looking-glass secret—in the form of a conversation between a reporter, Jeremiah Novak, and two Trilateral Commission members, Karl Kaiser and Richard Cooper.

The interview concerned the issue of who exactly, during President Carter’s administration, was formulating and controlling US economic and political policy.

The careless and off-hand attitude of Trilateralists Kaiser and Cooper is astonishing. It’s as if they’re saying, “What we’re revealing is already out in the open, it’s too late to do anything about it, why are you so worked up, we’ve already won…”

NOVAK (the reporter): Is it true that a private [Trilateral committee] led by Henry Owen of the US and made up of [Trilateral] representatives of the US, UK, West Germany, Japan, France and the EEC is coordinating the economic and political policies of the Trilateral countries [which would include the US]?

COOPER: Yes, they have met three times.

NOVAK: Yet, in your recent paper you state that this committee should remain informal because to formalize ‘this function might well prove offensive to some of the Trilateral and other countries which do not take part.’ Who are you afraid of?

KAISER: Many countries in Europe would resent the dominant role that West Germany plays at these [Trilateral] meetings.

COOPER: Many people still live in a world of separate nations [!], and they would resent such coordination [of policy].

NOVAK: But this [Trilateral] committee is essential to your whole policy. How can you keep it a secret or fail to try to get popular support [for its decisions on how Trilateral member nations will conduct their economic and political policies]?

COOPER: Well, I guess it’s the press’ job to publicize it.

NOVAK: Yes, but why doesn’t President Carter come out with it and tell the American people that [US] economic and political power is being coordinated by a [Trilateral] committee made up of Henry Owen and six others? After all, if [US] policy is being made on a multinational level, the people should know.

COOPER: President Carter and Secretary of State Vance have constantly alluded to this in their speeches.

KAISER: It just hasn’t become an issue.

SOURCE: “Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management,” ed. by Holly Sklar, 1980. South End Press, Boston. Pages 192-3.

Of course, although Kaiser and Cooper claimed everything being manipulated by the Trilateral Commission committee was already out in the open, it wasn’t.

Their interview slipped under the mainstream media radar, which is to say, it was ignored and buried. It didn’t become a scandal on the level of, say, Watergate, although its essence was far larger than Watergate.

US economic and political policy run by a Globalist committee of the Trilateral Commission—the Commission had been created in 1973 as an “informal discussion group” by David Rockefeller and his sidekick, Brzezinski, who would become Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor.

Shortly after Carter won the presidential election, his aide, Hamilton Jordan, said that if after the inauguration, Cy Vance and Brzezinski came on board as secretary of state and national security adviser, “We have lost. And I will quit.” Lost—because both men were powerful members of the Trilateral Commission and their appointment to key positions would signal a surrender of White House control to the Commission.

Vance and Brzezinski were appointed secretary of state and national security adviser, as Jordan feared. But he didn’t quit. He became Carter’s chief of staff.

Flash forward again, to the Obama administration.

In the run-up to his inauguration after the 2008 presidential election, Obama was tutored by the Globalist co-founder of the Trilateral Commission, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Four years before birthing the Commission with his boss of bosses, David Rockefeller, Brzezinski wrote: “[The] nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force. International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation state.”

Goodbye, separate nations. Hello, global government.

Any doubt on the question of Trialteral goals is answered by David Rockefeller himself, in his Memoirs (2003): “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

Patrick Wood, author of Trilaterals Over Washington and Technocracy Rising, points out there are only 87 members of the Trilateral Commission who live in America.

Here is the payoff. The US Trade Representative (appointed by Obama in 2013), who was responsible for negotiating the Globalist TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) treaty with 11 other nations, was Michael Froman, a former member of the Trilateral Commission. Don’t let the word “former” fool you. Commission members resign when they take positions in the Executive Branch of government. And when they serve in vital positions, such as US Trade Representative, they aren’t there by accident. They’re operatives with a specific agenda.

Flash forward one more time. Trump, who squashed the Globalist TPP treaty as soon as he was inaugurated, has been busy making staff appointments. Patrick Wood writes (2/6/17):

“According to a White House press release, the first member of the Trilateral Commission has entered the Trump administration as the Deputy Assistant to the President for International Economic Affairs, where he will sit on the National Security Council:

“Kenneth I. Juster will serve as Deputy Assistant to the President for International Economic Affairs. He will coordinate the Administration’s international economic policy and integrate it with national security and foreign policy. He will also be the President’s representative and lead U.S. negotiator (“Sherpa”) for the annual G-7, G-20, and APEC Summits.”

Juster’s duties will take him into the heart of high-level negotiations with foreign governments on economic policy.

Keep your eye on Mr. Juster. Will he take actions in line with Trump’s avowed anti-Globalist stance?

Or will Juster work as one more Globalist Trilateral operative in the center of American decision-making?

If the answer is “operative,” does Trump know this? Does he condone what Mr. Juster will do?

Or is this a case of secret infiltration, on behalf of the most powerful Globalist group in the world, the Trilateral Commission?

SIX: Globalized media. It’s nice plan. Let’s examine it.

The new technocratic media is based on profiling users. There is no impactful news unless each member of the audience is surveilled and analyzed on the basis of what he already likes and wants.

Shocking? It’s to be expected. How else would technocrats parlay the untold hours they’ve spent sizing up their consumers/users?

Several years ago, I wrote: “Tech blather has already begun, since Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon, bought the Washington Post at a fire sale. Jeff Genius will invent new ways to transmit the news to ‘people on the go’ and make the Post a smashing success. Mobile devices. Multiple platforms. Digital taking over from print. Ads customized to fit readers’ interests (profiling). News stories customized to fit readers’ interests (more profiling).”

In other words, non-news. If you thought media were irrelevant and deceptive before, you haven’t seen anything. The “new news” will create millions of virtual bubbles in which profiled users can float contentedly, under the cozy cottage roofs of their favorite little separate paradigms.

The tech giant Apple has waded into this territory with an app that will deliver news to users. Yahoo: “Apple News, part of the upcoming iOS 9 operating system, aims to be the primary news source for users of the iPhone and iPad… Apple says its news app ‘follows over a million topics and pulls relevant stories based on your specific interests’… Joshua Benton of the Nieman Journalism Lab said the app will be important because ‘through the awesome power of default, Apple distribution puts it in an entirely other league. This [news] app will be on hundreds of millions of devices within 24 hours of its debut’.”

Translation: Profiling their users down to their toenails, Apple will present them with virtual bubbles of news they want to see and read.

Not just one overall presentation for all; no, different “news outlets” for Apple’s audiences.

This introduces a whole new layer of mind control.

“You’re an Obama fan? Here are stories confirming your belief in the Prophet.”

“You want neo-con on the rocks with a conservative Republican twist? Here’s some war footage that’ll warm your heart.”

“Do you believe ‘government gridlock’ is our biggest concern? Congress can’t get anything done? We’ve got headlines for that from here to the moon.”

“Tuned into celeb gossip? Here’s your world in three minutes.”

The idea: convince users, one day at a time, that what they already believe is important IS the news of the day.

It’s Decentralized Centralization. One media giant carving its global audience up into little pieces and delivering them a whole host of different algorithmically appropriate lies and fluff and no-context psyops.

And for “fringe users?” “You’re doubtful about GMOs? Well, look at what Whole Foods is planning for their healthier produce section. Cheer up.” Nothing about Maui voters declaring a temporary ban on devastatingly toxic Monsanto/Dow experiments or the dangers of Roundup. “You’re anti-vaccine? Sorry, you don’t count. You’re not a recognized demographic. But here’s a piece about a little unvaccinated boy who was involved in car crash on the I5.”

Does this sound like science fiction? It isn’t. It’s the mainstream look of the near-future. Search engines are already “personalizing” your inquiries. US ABC national news is climbing in the ratings because it’s giving viewers “lighter stories,” and spending less time on thorny issues like the Middle East.

The mainstream news business is desperately looking for audience; and treating every “user” as a profiled social-construct-bundle of superficial preferences is their answer.

“Mr. X, we’ve studied the little virtual bubble you live in, and now we can sell you your own special brand of truth.”

“Hello, audience. We’re going to pitch you on becoming full-fledged obsessed consumers, as if there is no other worthy goal in life—and then we’re going to profile you from top to bottom, to find out exactly what kind of obsessed consumer you are, so we can hit you and trigger you with information that uniquely stimulates your adrenal glands…”

The one-two punch.

Any actual event occurring in the world will be pre-digested by robot media editors and profilers, and then split up into variously programmed bits of information for different audiences.

Who cares what really happened? In the new world, there is no ‘what really happened’. That’s a gross misnomer. A faulty idea. A metaphysical error. No, there is only a multi-forked media tongue that simultaneously spits out a dozen or a hundred variations of the same event…because different viewers want and expect different realities.

In 1984, Orwell’s Big Brother was issuing a single voice into the homes of the population. That was old-school. That was primitive technology. That was achieving unity by hammering unity into people’s skulls. This, now, is the frontier of unity through diversity.

“We want to make all of you into androids, through basic PR and propaganda and a pathetic excuse for education. However, we recognize you’ll become different varieties of androids, and we’ll serve that outcome with technological sophistication. Trust us. We care about what you prefer.”

User A: “Wow, did you see the coverage of the border war in Chula Vista?”

User B: “War? They had a fantastic exhibit of drones down there. At least a hundred different types. And then I watched an old WW2 movie about aerial combat.”

User C: “Chula Vista? They had a great food show. This woman made a lemon pie. I could practically taste it.”

User D: “That wasn’t a border war. It was a drill. And then afterwards, these cops gave a demonstration of all their gear. Vests, shields, communication devices, flash-bangs, auto rifles with silencers, batons. I watch drills all over the country. Love them.”

User E: “Chula Vista? The only thing I saw on the news was ‘sunny and mild’ this week. I watch all the weather channels. I love them.”

BUT when a Big One comes along, like the 2016 national election in the US, the separate tunes come together and ring as one. Then the overriding need to extend Globalism’s goals (in the person of Hillary Clinton) blot out every other priority. Then the major media twist whatever they need to twist. Then it’s the same bubble for everyone.

One problem, though. Major media have been lanced thousands of times by alt news sites, and by Wikileaks and Project Veritas. This attack has exposed the truth and the Clinton crimes.

And alt news reflects the growing interest of the public in what’s actually happening on many fronts.

The technocratic plan for the news is failing.

It was a nice plan, but…

It’s turning out to be a dud.

Alt media are forcing public awareness of one giant scandal after another: Hillary/Obama support for ISIS; pro-vaccine liars; the collapse of Obamacare; the GMO hustle; pesticide damage…on and on and on.

The result? Major media are being backed into a corner, where they must defend lies and build the same monolithic lies for EVERYONE all the time. The idea of creating separate news for each profiled user is ALREADY collapsing.

Major media are playing defense against the rest of the world.

It’s quite a party.

And it has no expiration date.

A final note: Trump, Wikileaks, Project Veritas, Drudge, and many alt news sites created a perfect storm in 2016, raining down on major media. It was and is unprecedented. The mainstream press has been exposed down to its roots, as never before. The lying, the collusion, the arrogant sense of entitlement, the desperation, the corruption—it’s all there to see, for anyone who has eyes and a few working brain cells. Expect more to come, regardless of the outcome of the election. The train has really left the station…

SEVEN: Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote, four years before birthing the TC with his godfather, David Rockefeller: “[The] nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force. International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation state.”

Several other noteworthy Trilateral members: George HW Bush; Bill Clinton; Dick Cheney; Al Gore. The first three men helped sink the US further into debt by fomenting wars abroad; and Gore’s cap and trade blueprint would destroy industrial economies, while vastly increasing the numbers of people in Third World countries who have no access to modern sources of energy.

Does all this offer a clue as to why the US economy has failed to recover from the Wall Street debacle of 2008, why the federal bailout was a handout to super-rich criminals, and why Obama took actions which prevented a recovery?

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

I have to apologize for devoting much of this weeks blogs to the remarks of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, but as I indicated in part one, so many people sent the transcription of his remarks to the Military Academy of the Russian General Staff, reported on The Sakers website, that I had to comment. And certainly his remarks warrant the extended treatment, for they outline the salient feature of the Russian states political worldview and mentality in a way that few remarks from Russian leaders have. They deserve careful consideration and reflection, for the implications of Mr. Lavrovs remarks are both broad and deep, and very long-term oriented. (I hope, eventually, to do a webinar in the members area on the Russian cosmist philosophers as part of the culture webinars series, for it is in that body of work from the Russian intelligentsia that one sees clearly how closely allied culture and politics are in contemporary Russian thinking.)

In part one, I reviewed the implications of Mr. Lavrovs extended references to the Peace of Westphalia, implications that spell out certain long term objectives of Russian foreign policy. Yesterday in part two, I reviewed the soft power/culture power connection of Russia’s foreign policy to that first Westphalian emphasis. Today I would like to focus on the third area: nuclear weapons and new non-nuclear strategic weapons. Here’s the link to the article once again:

I want to direct your attention today toward the end of Mr. Lavrovs remarks, and to some truly astonishing implications contained in them:

Recently, there has been a push towards forcing the nuclear states to abandon their nuclear arsenals and banning nuclear weapons altogether. It is crystal clear that this is premature. Let me remind you that it wasn’t for nothing that the parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty wrote into it that the nuclear arsenals had to be fully scrapped but only in the context of general and complete disarmament. We are prepared to discuss the possibility of further gradual reductions in nuclear capabilities but only if we take all the factors influencing strategic stability into account and not just the quantity of strategic offensive weapons.

Another reason why we’re prepared to discuss this issue is the growing sense of urgency about making this process multilateral. The restrictions on nuclear capabilities which Russia and the United States have repeatedly accepted for many years have led them to a situation where, essentially, they cannot proceed doing this on the bilateral basis. (Emphasis added)

A little further on, Mr. Lavrov adds this:

The formation of a polycentric international order is an objective process. It is in our common interest to make it more stable and predictable. In these conditions, the role of diplomacy as a tool to coordinate balanced solutions in politics, economics, finance, the environment, and the innovation and technology sectors has increased significantly. Simultaneously, the role of the armed forces as the guarantor of peace has increased too.

Observe that these two statements are the logical implications of the whole soft power culture power Westphalian emphasis; in effect, Mr. Lavrov has stated that the old Cold War conceptions of armaments reduction talks – with their emphasis on bean counting the number of tanks, warheads, missiles, aircraft – is simply no longer viable, for the other components of stability are cultural in nature, and lest one misunderstands his statements, he spells out what culture in this context means: it means the whole constellation of domestic and international political institutions, historical memory and traditions, finance and economics, technological innovation and so on.

Mr. Lavrov is correct here, for it is that constellation of factors that leads to the development of armaments and more importantly, the circumstances in which they are used. This brings us to remarks that Mr. Lavrov made in response to a question, and these are worth pondering long and hard:

To a very large extent, President Trump’s position on the majority of key issues on the foreign policy agenda, including further steps to limit strategic nuclear weapons as you’ve mentioned, has yet to be finalised. By the way, if I remember right, Donald Trump mentioned the issue of cooperation with us in this field as an example. He was asked whether he would be prepared to lift sanctions on Russia. I believe that was the way the question was formulated. He responded by saying they should see if there were issues on which they could cooperate with Russia on a mutually beneficial basis in US interests, in particular, mentioning nuclear arms control. At the same time, as you know, the US president said the Americans should modernise and build up their nuclear triad. We need to wait until the military budget is finally approved under the new administration and see what its priorities and objectives are and how these funds will be spent. As for our further conversation, I briefly mentioned in my address that we are ready for such a conversation but it should be conducted with acknowledgment of all strategic stability factors without exception. Today, those who propose implementing the so-called nuclear zero initiative as soon as possible, banning and destroying nuclear weapons and generally outlawing them absolutely, ignore the fact that since the nuclear bomb was made and this new kind of weapon began to be produced on a large scale in the USSR, the US, China, France and the UK, colossal changes have taken place in military science and technology. What is being developed in the US under the codename Prompt Global Strike are non-nuclear strategic weapons. If they are developed (and this work is moving forward very actively, with the objective of reaching any point in the world within an hour), of course, they will be more humane than nuclear weapons, because there will be no radiation, no Hiroshima or Nagasaki effect. However, in terms of military superiority, my friends at the Defence Ministry tell me the effect will be more devastating than from a modern nuclear bomb. (Emphasis added)

Note again that Mr. Lavrov has stated the Cold War Bean counting method of armaments limitations talks is not workable without a discussion and agreement on all factors – again the culture factor – are had. Note also that in his remarks Lavrov has ruled out nuclear disarmament, even on a bilateral US-Russia basis, since (1) there are other nuclear powers, but more importantly because (2) there is a whole class of non-nuclear strategic weapons, equally destructive as nuclear weapons for bombardment purposes.

For those familiar with it, this is similar to the position that former US Army Lt. Col Tom Bearden maintains was a negotiating position of the former Soviet Union in arms negotiations, namely, that they wanted to ban weapons even more destructive than nuclear weapons, because of their sheer destructive power. The American negotiators, Bearden maintains, did not have a clue what the Russians were then talking about.

This is a crucial factor, for what it indicates is that Russia is well aware of a whole class of secret weaponizable technologies -again, alluded to by Lavrov in his previous remarks – that have to be taken into consideration. In this specific instance, Mr. Lavrov is possibly referring to the rod of God kinetic space-based orbital bombardment technologies which literally propel an inert projectile at such extreme velocities to a surface target that the impact yields a colossal thermonuclear-sized explosion, but without any radioactive aftereffects. In short, think of a nuclear war, without radioactivity.

Wars are thinkable again, and this is a de-stabilizing factor. This could also indicate that, at present, Russia is not involved in the development of a similar capability, but that if such weapons are not up for negotiation with western powers, then it will perforce have to develop them. (And there is an important side issue here, for two powers – Germany and Japan – have undertaken not to develop thermonuclear or nuclear strategic weapons, which they could easily and very quickly do. Such technologies afford an end-run around their treaty obligations, and since both are space-faring powers as well, this potentiality exists, and is yet another de-stablizing factor in Russias strategic calculations).

If one parses Mr. Lavrovs concerns here closely, it is almost as if he is stating, as openly as he can, that negotiations on nuclear weapons is almost a moot point, since technological developments is quickly rendering them obsolescent if not obsolete. Its the secret stuff that Russia is (rightly) concerned about, and it’s the secret stuff that also is a de-stablizing factor and needs to be put on the table. If one now takes the concerns of all three parts of this blog together, then what at first might appear to be a kind of random grab bag of unrelated concerns is really a well-thought out connected policy. And that policy is one which, at its central core, is uniquely based in cultural concerns. And in this, in my opinion, its light years ahead of the create a crisis and then solve it approach of the West.

About Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

This article has to do with people who pick a political side or candidate and refuse to budge an inch, no matter how much troubling evidence is presented to them.

Their filter is firmly in place.

They have a vague impression of a politician—but vagueness is not an indicator of weakness. In this case, vague is mighty and powerful and immovable.

Such people feel an attachment, which they adore. The politician reflects back to them a belief they already hold. That belief, too, is vague. For example, “We must be kind to everyone.” But again, the vagueness is not a weakness. It is unshakable. Can the believer consider evidence that, in a particular situation, kindness is inappropriate or wrong? No. Never.

Based on a vague impression of a politician, and a vague belief, the person will go to his grave and beyond, gripping his attachment to both politician and belief. The entire power of the universe, focused on him, wouldn’t alter his stance.

“But you see, your candidate was instrumental in launching an unnecessary war that killed a hundred thousand people and turned a country into a hell hole, and here are the specifics…”

“Do you see that giant rock sitting on top of the hill above our village? It’s getting ready to fall. Let me show you some video and measurements.”

“I always loved that rock. It looks like a heart. Have you ever noticed? Don’t you dare try to split it in half or disturb it! When I was a child, I used to sing a song about The Granite King. We’d sit around the fire and roast marshmallows…”

It’s as if the person’s eyesight is becoming hazier as time passes, and yet his belief and attachment are gaining in strength.

“I’ve got my perception-filter, and I’m seeing everything through it, and I never put the filter aside and look at things as they are. Now, what was it you wanted to discuss?”

Of course, most politicians and their handlers capitalize on this hazy crazy psychological condition. Their prime goal is to impart a vague impression to the constituency. Why bother to strive for more?

George Bush the Elder spoke of a “kinder, gentler” society. Bill Clinton said, “I feel your pain.” These are rational political positions in the same way that the Rockefellers are, first and foremost, philanthropists.

Once a person’s perception-filter is fixed in place, he can be whipsawed without let-up. His candidate is good and glorious, and the other candidate is a monster. No facts necessary.

Evidence? Never heard of it.

One side endlessly good; the other side endlessly evil.

Even if that proposition were true, it wouldn’t matter. What matters is how perception can be managed.

Now we’re talking about real triggering. Actual Pavlovian stimulus-response. The mere mention of the “monster’s” name or a cartoon of his face or a quote from him about the weather is sufficient to set off a foaming drool of rage.

Is this externally induced programming? Yes. But at a deeper level, the person is shaping his own response. He’s the author. He’s installing the conditioning.

And at a high enough perch of power, the opportunities are abundant. “We can set both sides against each other and provoke warfare. We can make the most ridiculous claims and feed them to the rabid dogs…”

Again, the degree to which one politician or the other is a monster or a proponent of virtuous progress is irrelevant. The divide-and-provoke-and-conquer operation is all that matters to controllers who are running the op.

Then there is this factor: the all-important initiation of an adrenaline reaction.

When people become tuned to that feeling, they seek it out. This is what they want. If a situation isn’t fight or flight, they’re not interested. They yawn and turn away.

“Where’s the action? I need the action.”

“I don’t want to see a movie. I want to see a movie with fifty titanic explosions and bodies strewn on the street and buildings collapsing. And there’d better be athletic sex, too. And the hero has to experience at least ten close calls. I’m talking imminent death.”

Linking adrenaline surges to politics is vital.

“Supporting my candidate has to feel like love dangerously poised on the edge of a cliff, and the other candidate has to have a live nuclear bomb in his hand. That’s the movie I want to watch. I want to be inside that movie…”

The mere suggestion that one candidate might have a small flaw, while the other candidate is not quite Satan incarnate in every aspect, ruins the show. It dampens the hormonal rush.

“Who wrote that script? Give me my money back.”

Politics must be a movie projected on the screen of the subconscious. It must enter that territory unimpeded. Once there, it must take root and give birth to uncontrollable impulses.

Movie studios and high-level political manipulators are looking for this sweet spot. It’s cash and psychological payoffs and lines around the block.

“Look, we want love versus hate in this script. But it has to be ramped up to a fever pitch. No holds barred. We have to make the evil feel like EVIL, and the good feel like GOOD. At the same time, the hero and villain have to seem real. The audience has to experience being in their shoes and pants and underwear. We’re spending three hundred million on this piece of dreck, and it has to work…”

If the movie-studio gods can make half the audience root for the hero and the other half root for the villain, that’s pure gold. If they can provoke serious animosity between viewers, THEY CAN DEGRADE THE WHOLE NATURE OF THE ENTERPRISE and, when we’re talking about politics, that’s exactly what they’re shooting for.

“We can pit people against people and create a stalemate, where very little gets done—except the provocation of conflict. Then we’re home. Everyone sinks lower into a stimulation-response universe. We own that universe. We built it.”

Yes, they did, and they do. Ushering people into it makes it easier to control both sides and ultimately lower an apolitical boom on their heads. Otherwise known as erasing freedom.

“Political policy? Ideals? We don’t have that kind of agenda. The only agenda we have is installing chains around the mind.”

Achieving this goal, in the current American political landscape, only requires a quick inventory of: ratings. Where was the real heat? Where were the real numbers? Why, of course, it was during the campaign leading up to the election. Everybody was tuned in. Therefore, the campaign must never end. We must return to that time. Trump must never be president, and Hillary must never go away. Her shadowy presence and symbolic value—and surrogates—must persist. Thus, the endless challenge to Trump’s legitimacy. He didn’t win. The election was fixed. Perfect. That throws us into the furnace. Again.

Let us return to those days of yore, when families split apart, when the dire flow of energy and desire and vague impression and eternal attachment were King. That’s where we have to build the flames. That’s the subconscious target.

That’s the bulls-eye.

The mind.

Issues and scandals are gasoline pumped into the conflagration.

THIS person’s subconscious will veer THAT way, and THAT person’s subconscious will veer THIS way.

Those people who can see and argue actual evidence will be swallowed up in the noise and the roar.

The movie is called Degradation.

The box office is sensational.

It’s surround-sound and holographic.

Move past partisan payoffs to understand such a strategy. Even move past divide and conquer. The purpose, intent, and objective is eventual mental, emotional, hormonal, and energetic exhaustion.

The whole movie is a trap. The ending, if it ever comes, creates profound passivity in the mind.

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

In two of my collections, The Matrix Revealed and Power Outside The Matrix, I include basic training in the art of logic and more advanced critical analysis.

The basic fact is: students in schools are rarely taught how to follow a line of reasoning from beginning to end. Nor do they practice analyzing half-formed, faulty arguments.

Who teaches young students, these days, how to distinguish between a polemic and a formal argument?

Teachers spend little or no time discussing hidden premises or assumptions, which color a subsequent argument.

Increasingly, people are “learning” from watching videos. Some videos are well done; many others intentionally omit vital data and make inferences based on “shocking images.”

A focused study of logic can illuminate a range of subjects and disciplines. It can suddenly bring perspective to fields of inquiry that were formerly mysterious and impenetrable.

Logic is the parent of knowledge. It contains the principles and methods common to all investigation.

Being able to spot and understand logical flaws and fallacies embedded in an article, essay, book immediately lifts the intelligence level.

Logic isn’t a prison; one isn’t forced to obey its rules. But the ability to deploy it, versus not understanding what it is, is like the difference between randomly hammering at a keyboard and typing coherent paragraphs. It’s the difference between, “I guess I agree with what he’s writing,” and “I know exactly how he’s making his argument.”

In the West, the tradition of logic was codified by Aristotle. Before him, Plato, in the Socratic Dialogues, employed it to confound Socrates’ opponents.

Reading the Dialogues today, one can see, transparently, where Plato’s Socrates made questionable assumptions, which he then successfully foisted on those opponents. It’s quite instructive to go back and chart Socrates’ clever steps. You see logic and illogic at work.

High schools today don’t teach logic for two reasons. The teachers don’t understand the subject, and logic as a separate discipline has been deleted because students, armed with it, would become authentically independent. The goal of education rejects independent minds, despite assurances to the contrary.

Logic and critical analysis should be taught in phases, with each phase encompassing more complex passages of text offered for scrutiny.

Eventually, students would delve into thorny circumstantial arguments, which make up a great deal of modern investigation and research, and which need to be assessed on the basis of degrees of probable validity and truth.

It’s like a climbing a mountain. The lower paths are relatively easy, if the map is clear. At higher elevation, more elements come into play, and a greater degree of skill and experience is required.

My college logic teacher introduced his subject to the class this way: Once you’ve finished this semester, you’ll know what you know, and you’ll know what you don’t know.

The second part of his statement has great value. It enables real research beyond egotistical concerns, beyond self-serving presumptions, beyond secretly assuming what you’re pretending to prove.

We certainly don’t live in an age of reason; far from it. Therefore—the greater need to learn logic. Among other benefits, it centers the thinking process.

In a landscape of controversy, babble, bluster, public relations, covert propaganda, and outright lying, one has a dependable compass.

For instance, understanding the scientific method (hypothesis-prediction-verification) would go a long way toward untangling some of the outrageous claims of science, and separating them from the political agendas they serve.

Beginning in ancient Greece, coming up through the Middle Ages, and into the 19th century, logic was one aspect of education called the Trivium (“the three”): in sequence, a student learned grammar, then logic, then rhetoric.

Except in scattered places, where people have consciously instituted a revival of the Trivium, that integrated method of teaching is gone now.

Instead, in primary and middle schools, we have superficial coasting through many academic subjects, minus the necessary exercises and drills to ensure that students grasp material. In other words, we have imposed ADHD.

Logic isn’t the end-all and be-all of life. It doesn’t define what life is. It’s a tool. You either have it or you don’t. You can use it or you can’t. When you can, you have more power, and whole new vistas, previously unseen, open up to you.

Logic is a tool in your box. When you need to go in and remove it and use it, is it dull or is it sharp?

Finally, studying logic gives a student an appreciation of consequences. For example, a politician announces a high-flying generalization, as a plank of his platform. Two things ought to follow. The student does his best to translate that generality into specific terms which actually mean something. Then he traces what would happen if the plank were, in fact, put into effect; what would the consequences specifically entail? There are always consequences—it’s just that most people never see them or think about them, because they haven’t the foggiest idea about how to flesh them out and map their implications.

Logic: one of the great contributions to civilization, left to die on the vine.

Believe it or not, today’s blog may be related to the two previous days’ blogs. But what possible relationship could Bitcoin and for that matter, crypto-currencies in general have to CERN or to Argentina and the recent visits of Mr. Tillerson and Mr. Bezos there, to check out the “nature”.

Well, when Mr. M.A. sent the following article to me, he did so with some very suggestive high octane speculation of his own. He suggested that, perhaps, there might be a connection between CERN and crypto-currency mining. Why? Well, because there is a bunker in Switzerland which was built by the Swiss military as a command headquarters during the Cold War, and which now functions as a private corporate facility, surrounded by intense security, to guard crypto-currency encryption keys, the very things that drive blockchain:

It’s odd to think of a virtual currency needing physical storage, but just like your most precious photos, cryptocurrencies need some kind of material container. A bitcoin vault doesn’t store actual bitcoin units. Technically, what’s being stored are private, cryptographic keys. These keys form a pair with public-facing keys and provide access to the balance of coins stored on the bitcoin network. Gaining unauthorized access to someone’s private key is akin to stealing their gold bar. The security protocol in the bunker is designed to ward off attacks from “well-funded terrorist groups or hackers.”

Stories of hackers finding their way through even the best-secured bitcoin accounts are legion, and—given that bitcoin was designed to make banks obsolete—it’s ironic that bank-like methods have to be used to keep cryptocurrencies safe.

If someone gets hold of your private key, there’s no way to claw the funds back or demand a refund. That’s why firms that store bitcoin like this one, called Xapo, are a juicy target—and why the bunker requires paranoiac levels of security.

But why would Mr. M.A. suggest a potential link to CERN? While his email was rather sketchy in details, I had to admit, as I allowed my own penchant for high octane speculation to run amok, he may have a point, for three basic reasons: (1) mining crypt-currencies requires a lot of electricity, something which CERN has in abundance; (2) mining crypto-currencies also requires a lot of computing power, something which CERN also has in an abundance rivaled probably only by the vast computing power of intelligence and signals-intercept agencies; and the real kicker is (3) CERN may be engaged in secret data analysis and correlation experiments, as I have speculated on numerous occasions. But it is also a sovereign entity, and could equally use that power as a means of very covert funding. Enter crypto-currencies, for as I’ve also pointed out on this site, stories have recently emerged that some very nefarious groups are using crypt-currencies to fund their operations and activities. So Mr. M.A.’s speculation may not be all that much of a stretch. (Hmmm… Switzerland, Templars, lots of money, Templar space satellites…. hmmm….)

But then, squatting in the middle of this article, something else caught my attention, and my jaw hit the floor. Recall that yesterday I blogged about the appearance of Mr. Jeff Bezos in Patagonia, tweeting about glaciers and saving the planet and space. Mr. Bezos, as most people know, is a billionaire, the founder of Amazon, owner of the Washington Post, and Amazon and the CIA are in turn related (and not just indirectly through the Post). Amazon is a huge database, if one wants to look at it a certain way, sitting on top of mountains of raw data of inestimable value to intelligence.

Mr. Bezos’ presence in Argentina is coincident with U.S. Secretary of State Tillerson’s, and again, Mr. Tillerson’s Argentinian junket began, not in Buenos Aires with a meeting with President Macri, but in San Carlos di Bariloche where, ostensibly, he was to give a speech to a nature preserve and meet with a Fullbright scholar.

Uh huh. Sure. Glaciers, Fullbright scholars, and nature preserves.

So what was squatting in the middle of the article?

Sit down, and have a couple of fingers of Jack Daniels, because this one is a stunner, and full of implications:

Xapo’s founder is the Argentinian entrepreneur Wences Casares, the “patient zero” of bitcoin among Silicon Valley’s elite. It was Casares who gave tech luminaries like Bill Gates and Reid Hoffman their first bitcoins. Carlos Rienzi, Xapo’s head of security, chose the vault, and he designed the private suite and its security protocols.(Emphasis added)

That’s right: the owner of this bunker, and one of the “founders” of Bitcoin, according to this article, and therefore, someone who sits on top of the Bitcoin op, is an Argentine “entrepreneur”.

Now let’s search for Senor Cesares. Wikipedia says this about him:

He is the founder and CEO of Xapo, a bitcoin wallet startup based in Palo Alto, California.[2] Xapo is said to be the largest custodian of bitcoin in the world.[3]Xapo has raised $40 million from leading Silicon Valley venture capital firms.[4]

Casares sits on the board of PayPal and, as part of his non-profit activities, he serves on the board of Endeavor,[5] a non-profit organization that promotes high-impact entrepreneurship in emerging markets and that was instrumental in his early success. He also served on the board of Kiva,[6] a non-profit organization with a mission to connect people through lending to alleviate poverty worldwide.

Originally from Patagonia, Argentina, Casares launched that country’s first Internet Service Provider, Internet Argentina S.A. in 1994, a company he would go on to sell in order to found the Argentine online brokerage Patagon in 1997. Patagon established itself as Latin America’s first comprehensive Internet financial services portal and expanded its online banking services to the United States, Spain, and Germany. Patagon was acquired by the Spanish bank, Banco Santander for $750 million which became Santader Online worldwide.

Oh… gee… look! He’s from Patagonia in Argentina!

And oh… gee…look: he has online banking services connected to Spain, the USA, and Germany!

And… wow… look again! It’s all being coordinated from a bunker!

Now the question is, who else, and what else, is he connected with?

And gee, this all sort of makes me wonder, with blockchain encryption, if crypto-currencies aren’t a perfect way to launder all sorts of missing money, and while doing so, manipulating their prices as well, kill two birds with one stone, so to speak…

___________________________________________________________
The article above is mirrored from GizaDeathStar.com. If you enjoy the content, make sure to head to the website and checkout more if interested.

If you appreciate the content shared on TheBreakaway and happen to enjoy LEGO building with MOCs and such, please make sure to checkout my Bricklink Store Blocked Up.

Or if you perhaps gravitate towards Perler Bead Art, then make sure visit the RenditionsOfTheMind Perler Beads Pixel Art Shop on Etsy.

If not, don’t forget to like, share and subscribe to follow along for more similar content in future posts!

—After investigating psychiatry for two decades, I’m confident that, if we could go back and rewrite history, deleting all psychiatrists on the planet, so they’d never exist—deleting their diagnoses and their drugs—this would have resulted in a massive upsurge in mental health, moving forward—

The Daily Mail: “A group of leading psychiatrists told a conference that Donald Trump has clear hallmarks of mental illness that compromise his role as president. Twenty-five researchers made a drastic break away from ethical standards by meeting at Yale University on Thursday to discuss evidence questioning the commander-in-chief’s mental health.”

Psychiatrist Allen Frances, who has played a central role in defining mental disorders, disagrees. He wrote in the NY Times: “Most amateur diagnosticians have mislabeled [Mr. Trump as having] narcissistic personality disorder. He may be a world-class narcissist, but this doesn’t make him mentally ill.”

Dr. Frances makes an interesting point. He distinguishes between behavior and earning a badge for having a particular mental disorder.

For example, a person can be sad, but that alone doesn’t make him a candidate for the label, “clinical depression.” A person can take aggressive actions against authority, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he is suffering from Oppositional Defiance Disorder.

Consider the accusation that Trump has Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). What does that mean? What is the official definition of NPD? Here is an excerpt from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the official bible of the American Psychiatric Association. Go ahead, plow through it, it’ll only take a minute:

“The definition of NPD states that it comprises of a persistent manner of grandiosity, a continuous desire for admiration, along with a lack of empathy. It starts by early adulthood and occurs in a range of situations, as signified by the existence of any 5 of the next 9 standards (American Psychiatric Association, 2013):

A grandiose logic of self-importance
• A fixation with fantasies of infinite success, control, brilliance, beauty, or idyllic love
• A credence that he or she is extraordinary and exceptional and can only be understood by, or should connect with, other extraordinary or important people or institutions
• A desire for unwarranted admiration
• A sense of entitlement
• Interpersonally oppressive behavior
• No form of empathy
• Resentment of others or a conviction that others are resentful of him or her
• A display of egotistical and conceited behaviors or attitudes”

“…No actual physical characteristics are seen with NPD, but patients may have concurrent substance abuse, which may be seen in the clinical examination.”

Got it? Now, think about this: NOWHERE IN THE DEFINITION IS THERE ANY DEFINING DIAGNOSTIC TEST.

If you have the tenacity, read through the whole psychiatric DSM bible and you will see for yourself.

Or read this brief exchange. In a PBS Frontline episode, “Does ADHD Exist?” Dr. Russell Barkley, an eminent professor of psychiatry and neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center, spelled out the fraud clearly.

Here it is.

PBS FRONTLINE INTERVIEWER: Skeptics say that there’s no biological marker—that it [ADHD] is the one condition out there where there is no blood test, and that no one knows what causes it.

BARKLEY: That’s tremendously naïve, and it shows a great deal of illiteracy about science and about the mental health professions. A disorder doesn’t have to have a blood test to be valid. If that were the case, all mental disorders would be invalid…There is no lab test for any mental disorder right now in our science. That doesn’t make them invalid.

Oh, indeed, that does make them invalid. Utterly and completely. All 300 mental disorders. Because there are no defining tests of any kind to back up the diagnosis.

Psychiatrists can sway and tap dance all they like and they won’t escape the noose around their necks. We are looking at a science that isn’t a science.

That’s called fraud. Rank fraud.

Imagine this. You walk into a doctor’s office, you talk with him for a few minutes, and then he says: “You have cancer. You need to start chemo at once.”

After you recover, you say, “You didn’t give me a test.”

And he says, “Well, we don’t need a test. We know what the symptoms are because we convened a high-level meeting of oncologists last year, and we listed the answers to the questions I just asked you. You gave those telltale answers. So we start chemo tomorrow. We may also need to surgically remove an organ or two before we’re done.”

That’s psychiatry. That’s the way it works.

Those boys have quite a con going. And now, from a few hundred miles away, they’ve diagnosed a sitting president.

Well, why wouldn’t they? They’ve been shucking and jiving all the way to the bank for the entirety of their professional lives.

Do you like Trump? Do you hate him? Do you think he’s nuts? Sane? Whatever you believe, it has nothing to do with the official pronouncements of psychiatry.

Over the years, as we’ve been watching the emerging of the Shanghai Cooperation organization (a.k.a. the BRICSA bloc), and the Chinese Silk Road project, I and many others have been arguing that if the project is to be genuinely viable and an alternative to the American unipolarism generally, and its virtual monopoly on international financial clearing particularly, it will have to be buttressed by its own international financial clearing system, one moreover both secure and free from meddling by the powers it serves, trust being the key issue for the users of such a system.

There are potentially other factors in play for the creation of such a system, and those are the potentialities of a threat from space. In the event of hostilities engulfing space – human or otherwise – redundancy in the international clearing systems is a must.

With that in mind, Russia just took another major step in fleshing out the parameters of that system, and a major step as well in securing its domestic clearing operations, according to this Sputnik article shared by Ms. S.:

What’s notable here is that while China has been perfecting the space-to-ground and ground-to-space links for quantum communications systems, Russia appears to have concentrated on actual practical systems for current financial and institutional use:

Sberbank became the first company to receive the new quantum protection system, developed by the Moscow-based Russian Quantum Center (RQC). According to RQC general-director Ruslan Yunusov, the service is now ready for widespread use by companies and organizations.

Physicists and engineers from RQC have launched the first working quantum link between two Sberbank branches, transferring real financial data using highly a secure connection, the research organization’s press service has reported.

“Thanks to quantum communication technology, we have provided for a high frequency of key generation, thus dramatically increasing the level of data protection. Russian organizations will get the opportunity to use a system created in our own country to protect their information, which is important for the state,” Yunusov said.

The special, 25 km-long line between Sberbank’s central office and a branch near the city center is protected via the phenomenon of quantum entanglement.(Empasis added)

It’s that intriguing point about using hardware developed in Russia to create what may very well be the first commercial and operational such link that caught my eye, and prompts today’s high octane speculation. Why? Consider the Russian achievement in the wider context of two stories that emerged last year: (1) the Chinese success with quantum communications between the Earth and space and vice versa, and (2) India’s space program’s feat of a mass launch of small satellites – nearly fifty – in the short span of two weeks, and almost mind-boggling administrative and technical achievement.

It’s when one puts these three things together and “views them whole” that one gets an intriguing possible picture, a picture of strategized coordination between the three major BRICS bloc powers, and the build-out of a system of financial clearing. If that high octane speculative read of the situation is true, then it appears that China is testing the space-based -high tech components, Russia is testing the ground-based inter-institutional links, and India is testing the ability to deploy massive space assets quickly and – as it were – suddenly. China has already built its CIPS clearing system, and we could be looking at something posed for something much bigger…

What might that be?

Well, to crawl way out on the end of the twig of speculation, perhaps it might be the building of interplanetary aspects of financial clearing. Think about it: we’ve seen stories of asteroid minining, space mining, NASA wanting broadband internet on the Moon and (eventually) Mars, and don’t think for a moment India, China, and Russia intend on being left out.

Sensible Prepper Presents: Extreme Winter Survival Vehicle Kit. We’re putting together the items that can give you a fighting chance against Old Man Winter. Inspired by the Story of the family in NW Nevada who in 2014, was stranded in their vehicle for 48 hours in -21 degree temps and their story of survival.

“Well, boys, we’ve got this strange thing called THE INDIVIDUAL. Could somebody tell me what he is? He’s not conforming to our algorithms. He’s all over the place. And while we’re at it, what the hell is this IMAGINATION? It keeps slipping out of our grasp, it doesn’t fit the plan…”

PART ONE

—Technocrats say they want to wipe out poverty, war, and inequality. But in order to achieve these lofty goals (or pretend to), they need to re-program humans—

Technocracy is the basic agenda and plan for ruling global society from above, so we need to understand it from several angles.

Consider a group of enthusiastic forward-looking engineers in the early 20th century. They work for a company that has a contract to manufacture a locomotive.

This is a highly complex piece of equipment.

On one level, workers are required to make the components to spec. Then they must put them all together. These tasks are formidable.

On another level, various departments of the company must coordinate their efforts. This is also viewed as a technological job. Organizing is considered a technology.

When the locomotive is finished and delivered, and when it runs on its tracks and pulls a train, a great and inspiring victory is won.

And then…the engineers begin to think about the implications. Suppose the locomotive was society itself? Suppose society was the finished product? Couldn’t society be put together in a coordinated fashion? And couldn’t the “technology of organizing things” be utilized for the job?

Why bother with endlessly arguing and lying politicians? Why should they be in charge? Isn’t that an obvious losing proposition? Of course it is.

Engineers could lay out and build a future society that would benefit all people. Disease and poverty could be wiped out. Eliminating them would be part of the blueprint.

This “insight” hit engineers and technicians like a ton of bricks. Of course! All societies had been failures for the same reason: the wrong people were in charge.

Armed with this new understanding, engineers of every stripe began to see what was needed. A revolution in thinking about societal organization. Science was the new king. And science would rule.

Of course, for an engineered world to work, certain decisions would have to be made about the role of the individual. Every individual. You couldn’t have an air-tight plan if every human were free to pursue his own objectives. Too many variables. Too much confusion. Too much conflict. Well, that problem could be solved. The individual’s actions would be tailored to fit the coordinated operations of the planned society.

The individual would be “one of the components of the locomotive.” His life would be connected to other lives to produce an exemplary shape.

Yes, this could imply a few problems, but those problems could be worked out. They would have to be worked out, because the overriding goal was the forming of a world organization. What would you do if one bolt (an individual human) in one wheel of a locomotive was the wrong size? You would go back and correct the error. You would re-make the bolt.

Other people entered the game. High-echelon Globalists saw technocracy as a system they could use to control the population.

Essentially, an already-misguided vision of a future technocratic utopia was hijacked. Something bad was made much worse.

In a nutshell, this is the history of technocracy.

A locomotive is a society? No. That was the first fatally flawed idea. Everything that followed was increasingly bizarre.

Unfortunately, many people in our world believe in Globalism, if you could call a partial vague view a legitimate belief. They dreamily float on all the propaganda cover stories—greatest good for the greatest number of people; no more poverty; equality of sharing; reducing the carbon footprint; a green economy; “sustainable development”; international cooperation; allotting production and consumption of goods and services for the betterment of everyone; and all of this delivered from a central platform of altruistic guidance.

If you track down the specifics that sit under these cover stories, you discover a warped system of planning that expresses control over the global population.

The collective utopia turns out to be a sham.

Waking up is hard to do? Breaking up is hard to do? They must be done.

A workable technological fix is a very nice achievement when the project is a machine. But transferring that glow of victory to the whole of society is an illusion. Anything that calls itself education would tackle the illusion as the first order of business.

Engineering society requires engineering humans.

That is the fatal flaw.

It’s called mind control.

PART TWO

Any genuine artist, any builder of communities, any sane activist, any honorable visionary stands outside technocracy, and is not part of this program.

Instead, his thrust is toward more individual freedom and a more open society with greater decentralization of power.

Decentralization is the key.

The use of technology does not imply living inside its control. The use of technology does not imply that society should be laid out like a giant machine with fitted parts.

Those futurists who have offered “overall plans” for the disposition of society generally ignore or sidestep the issue of who is going to administer the plan. To say this is an error is a vast understatement.

Where is one far-reaching center of power in our world that would run society?

All such centers of power are, first and foremost, dedicated to their own survival. And after that, they are dedicated to control of the territory they believe they own. THE INDIVIDUAL is a messy thing that needs to be sidelined or dealt with as a disruptive element.

I speak to those people who understand that the idea of the free, independent, powerful, and creative individual is being sidelined, shelved, and sent down the memory hole. This is no accident. This isn’t just a devolutionary trend. Technocrats see this as a necessary action, in order to “clean up” their equation for the civilization they’re building. The individual is a slippery variable that throws a monkey wrench into formulas.

PART THREE

Imagination never dies.

It belongs to the individual. It isn’t property of the group.

It enables solutions that eradicate problems and get out ahead of problems before they raise their heads.

Time and time again, the individual, as he wends his way through life, encounters persons and organizations that consider imagination a negative. In the clearly defined shapes of society, imagination must take a back seat to planning.

Is the individual resistant to such manipulations, or does he give in?

This is the key question.

Does the individual view society as an operation that can potentially lift up individuals and empower them? Or does he give in to the idea that society should create more and more dependent people?

The individual can be a source of spreading freedom, or he can defend the notion that there are an endless number of “entitlements” that must be honored.

Technocracy promotes entitlements as a doorway into the future. Its ultimate entitlement goes this way: you have the right to be re-programmed to believe you have a slot in the future world; we will make this slot as attractive as possible; you will serve the overall good as we engineer it.

That is the fundamental justification for the Welfare State. It’s the justification for a future technocratic policy which will assign citizens energy quotas. A citizen would be permitted to consume a set amount of energy in a given time period. (So-called smart meters are a step in that direction. The meters enable more specific measurements of energy consumption.)

This is how technocracy views the future…your future.

The ultimate technocratic vision? Your brain is a processor, and your brain is your mind. That’s all your mind is. Therefore, connecting your brain to a super-computer, or to the Cloud, will magically expand your mind and make it “more than human.”

You will become trans-human. A hybrid of human and machine.

This is the fairy tale to end all fairy tales.

It’s wishful fantasy dressed up as science.

The idea is: you will become More. You will overcome the limits and problems associated with being an individual.

Every individual will receive the same information and the same answers and the same solutions from the Cloud. AUTOMATICALLY.

This is the programmer’s wet dream.

Technocrats will thus be able to build a global society and control its every facet.